Bill Pierce
Well-known
Here’s a blog piece about a world I’ve spent some of my time in.
http://kennethjarecke.typepad.com/mostly_true/2009/03/petes-team.html
For most folks, news photography pays too little once you have the responsibility of family, e.t.c.. Not only is the original assignment often low balled, publishers want all rights, eliminating significant additional income after initial publication.
Cutting costs in the dying industry of print journalism is essential, but for a long time it has, and will continue to, lower the quality of photojournalism. Many editors privately admit to this. Guess what, not all good journalistic and documentary photographers want to take a vow of poverty.
As much as news publications would like to talk about their objectivity, there is not a lot of objectivity in a good photograph. War pictures say, “This is horrible.” The reporter tells you how many people were killed and by whom.
The best editorial photographers, be it Don McCullin, Gene Richards or Susan Meiselas, have always been concerned with telling a moral tale. At one time, work like theirs appeared regularly in news publications.
Truth is, such moral tales are now more effectively told by motion picture directors like Clint Eastwood. Should photographers who want to talk about important issues head to Hollywood?
Your thoughts?
http://kennethjarecke.typepad.com/mostly_true/2009/03/petes-team.html
For most folks, news photography pays too little once you have the responsibility of family, e.t.c.. Not only is the original assignment often low balled, publishers want all rights, eliminating significant additional income after initial publication.
Cutting costs in the dying industry of print journalism is essential, but for a long time it has, and will continue to, lower the quality of photojournalism. Many editors privately admit to this. Guess what, not all good journalistic and documentary photographers want to take a vow of poverty.
As much as news publications would like to talk about their objectivity, there is not a lot of objectivity in a good photograph. War pictures say, “This is horrible.” The reporter tells you how many people were killed and by whom.
The best editorial photographers, be it Don McCullin, Gene Richards or Susan Meiselas, have always been concerned with telling a moral tale. At one time, work like theirs appeared regularly in news publications.
Truth is, such moral tales are now more effectively told by motion picture directors like Clint Eastwood. Should photographers who want to talk about important issues head to Hollywood?
Your thoughts?
Bike Tourist
Well-known
There's never been objectivity in photography. How could there be? The mere act of framing an image — exclusion is just as important inclusion — bespeaks a point of view.
Hollywood has its geniuses and hacks and so does the art of the still image. Stllls have been impacted by the swing to digital more than movies, I think, because of the decline of print media. Despite TV people still flock to the flicks. Now, whatever has been lost by the printed page has been more than compensated (in volume) by the internet. The result is that we're up to our metaphorical eyeballs in images — swimming in them. The good, the bad and the ugly. Just as you have to be a knowledgable consumer of information on the internet, you have to try to maintain some viewing standards among all the crap that's pointed your way every day.
I think there's a lot of room for stories to be told effectively in the new media. Actually, motion pictures cost a lot of money to produce. Web pages are pretty cheap.
So . . . it's not necessary to go to Hollywood or Bollywood to make fine pictures. You just might not get rich doing it.
Hollywood has its geniuses and hacks and so does the art of the still image. Stllls have been impacted by the swing to digital more than movies, I think, because of the decline of print media. Despite TV people still flock to the flicks. Now, whatever has been lost by the printed page has been more than compensated (in volume) by the internet. The result is that we're up to our metaphorical eyeballs in images — swimming in them. The good, the bad and the ugly. Just as you have to be a knowledgable consumer of information on the internet, you have to try to maintain some viewing standards among all the crap that's pointed your way every day.
I think there's a lot of room for stories to be told effectively in the new media. Actually, motion pictures cost a lot of money to produce. Web pages are pretty cheap.
So . . . it's not necessary to go to Hollywood or Bollywood to make fine pictures. You just might not get rich doing it.
Robburrito
Member
I think they would find Hollywood producers even less concerned about "important issues" than the magazines they left. I mean, it works for Clint Eastwood because he's *CLINT EASTWOOD* and has Hollywood cachet and name recognition. Only the most well-known photographers/photojournalists could maybe pitch any ideas out there, but for most I dont think there would be any more opportunity than elsewhere.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Print editorial and reportage photography has depended on advertising, and the Internet model is no different. But supply and demand are different. With seemingly unlimited supply and the same demand, earning a living is at least as difficult as in the print world.
Maybe the opportunity for actually making a living in the business will truly shrink and meaningful projects will either be spec work with the photograper's primary income from other pursuits and/or the domain of those in established agencies such as Magnum.
Maybe the opportunity for actually making a living in the business will truly shrink and meaningful projects will either be spec work with the photograper's primary income from other pursuits and/or the domain of those in established agencies such as Magnum.
R
rpsawin
Guest
Frankly it seems as if they would be just as well off heading for You Tube and Face Book...save the gas $$$.
Best,
Bob
Best,
Bob
Merkin
For the Weekend
If you can find a 'story' with some legs to it, you could always expand the concept of the photo essay in to a book, and publish that way.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Sadly, most photo books do not make enough money to support a photographer who is taking pictures only for that purpose. Equally important, books and websites do not reach anywhere near as many people as even the old "newsmagazines" did. (Remember, fifty years ago, Time Magazine reached more people than the combined viewership of the three TV networks.)
Movies (and other forms of "entertainment") can reach and touch large numbers people in ways they are barely conscious of. They go to see a Western about an old gunslinger and, perhaps, end up agreeing with him that killing people isn't quite all that it's cracked up to be.
Within the "industry," the director of photography is just as important as the stars. Yes, you're part of a team. Anyone who has worked there can assure you that you work for a newspaper or newsmag as part of a team.
We're just talking about reaching people, educating people, perhaps changing people. If you're talking purpose or quality, Clint Eastwood runs a better, more effective team than the publishers of People Magazine. Maybe,if you want to be a teller of fables, it's more effective to be a DP than a photojournalist if you find a good team.
emraphoto
Veteran
Truth be told i think the "shake down" of print journalism needed to happen. At the moment I am thankful... That is certainly not to be confused with "happy folks are losing their jobs".
The primary reason I find myself in the "happy" crowd is that FINALLY the old vanguard is no longer the biggest hurtle. At least in my neck of the woods this has turned out to be a positive. Now before i get a sound thrashing from the crowd please understand that I hold the Barbey's, Kamber's etc. in the highest regard. The issue I have is with the "tight and bright" and "fast" crowd that has defined much of the North American market for the past decade or two. It seems that in the rush to be the "fastest" news source on the wire quality work took a back seat. The dailies pushed fast as lightning approaches on the market and the market responded by giving audience to whomever could give them their 30 second snippet at the highest rate of speed. In the current market I lose over 85% of the potential value of my photo's by about 9pm at night. (cut off is 11 but in canada there is multiple time zones). Regardless of the quality of the photo's. I recently saw a fella I know, who's a staff shooter for sunmedia, pull out his cel phone at an event. I didn't even have to ask... I knew perfectly well what he was up to. Snap, click, send.
I am not at all surprised at the market reaction. Sure current global economics played a big part in accelerating the protracted swan song of the dailies however is it at all possible that the market stopped paying attention because their was no substance to grab our hearts and minds? Nothing to pay attention to?
The craft of story telling via the still image is not done yet. The end game of this shuffle will only serve to re-define how things are done. It is no secret that lot's of folks have moved to NGO's for funding, Smaller, local e dailies and magazines, multimedia installations. There is the crowd that stands about bemoaning the situation. I see them almost everyday. I recently discussed these matters with a colleague and he commented on the words of one of the "old guard" in our area "I am not going to rock the boat. I have five years left and i am going to keep it tight and bright until that pension kicks in." I feel sorry for the guy. If he makes it through those five years I will be very surprised.
Modern photojournalism lost site of "reaching out and touching someone" and now it suffers the consequences. The simple fact that folks like Eastwood can do what he does sends a very clear signal to me... The audience exists. The challenge is to re-convince them the product is up to snuff.
The primary reason I find myself in the "happy" crowd is that FINALLY the old vanguard is no longer the biggest hurtle. At least in my neck of the woods this has turned out to be a positive. Now before i get a sound thrashing from the crowd please understand that I hold the Barbey's, Kamber's etc. in the highest regard. The issue I have is with the "tight and bright" and "fast" crowd that has defined much of the North American market for the past decade or two. It seems that in the rush to be the "fastest" news source on the wire quality work took a back seat. The dailies pushed fast as lightning approaches on the market and the market responded by giving audience to whomever could give them their 30 second snippet at the highest rate of speed. In the current market I lose over 85% of the potential value of my photo's by about 9pm at night. (cut off is 11 but in canada there is multiple time zones). Regardless of the quality of the photo's. I recently saw a fella I know, who's a staff shooter for sunmedia, pull out his cel phone at an event. I didn't even have to ask... I knew perfectly well what he was up to. Snap, click, send.
I am not at all surprised at the market reaction. Sure current global economics played a big part in accelerating the protracted swan song of the dailies however is it at all possible that the market stopped paying attention because their was no substance to grab our hearts and minds? Nothing to pay attention to?
The craft of story telling via the still image is not done yet. The end game of this shuffle will only serve to re-define how things are done. It is no secret that lot's of folks have moved to NGO's for funding, Smaller, local e dailies and magazines, multimedia installations. There is the crowd that stands about bemoaning the situation. I see them almost everyday. I recently discussed these matters with a colleague and he commented on the words of one of the "old guard" in our area "I am not going to rock the boat. I have five years left and i am going to keep it tight and bright until that pension kicks in." I feel sorry for the guy. If he makes it through those five years I will be very surprised.
Modern photojournalism lost site of "reaching out and touching someone" and now it suffers the consequences. The simple fact that folks like Eastwood can do what he does sends a very clear signal to me... The audience exists. The challenge is to re-convince them the product is up to snuff.
furcafe
Veteran
As much as preachy movies often annoy me, I agree that movies & TV are a better way of reaching, & influencing, the public than photography. However, although there are some shared qualities, I think the skills involved in making good video/motion pictures are very different from still photography & I don't believe we can assume that most still photographers can effectively make the leap to, or find a niche in, Hollywood. Kubrick is probably the most famous exception that proves the rule. I take your point that you don't have to be a director, just a DP, but don't know if there are really many more openings for DP positions than there are for photojournalists.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
No.
To quote Capa on Hollywood:
"The biggest pile of sh*t I've ever stepped in."
I've worked in 'the biz' for 16 years now and until recently lived a few streets up from you Bill, on the edge of Santa Monica.
Anything of substance is dead in Hollywood, even if you could make it for 20 cents. Even Mr Eastwood doesn't have an easy time finding money for his projects and he's got everything going for himself, that you possibly could in that town.
If you pitch a screenplay and it doesn't fit in to the Syd Field script formula you have one of two choices. Rewrite it so it fits or pretty much forget about it. It is very difficult to get anything made that isn't mainstream schlock.
The problem with film making is that it costs infinitely more money to make a movie, than finance a trip to one of the far corners of the world and shoot a photostory. You can save up a few thousand dollars to shoot a photostory, but you need a minimum of $50,000-100,000 and up to shoot even the most basic indie movie on 16mm or video. You may be able to do a documentary for that amount of money.
So, no. I don't think that Hollywood is an alternative for frustrated shooters. You would stand a better chance getting something made in Europe, if you really insisted on going that route.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Harry -
I wasn’t thinking so much of producing your own projects as being part of a team (DP) that occasionally got to work on a meaningful story.
While making a movie costs a lot, just putting a still shooter in a foreign conflict is big enough bucks that I don’t know any individual who can underwrite his own expenses without seriously sacrificing safety and access. As a sometimes photo boss in some of those situations I’ve been one of the folks who has worked some duplicitous schemes to keep some rather well known shooters working against the wishes of the budget conscious home office. As a shooter, there were some favorite places at times I didn’t go to because I couldn’t talk anybody into sending me.
At least stills and movies can be the same in the sense of “it costs more than I can spring for.” I just think it would be nice to work on movies because when you worked on one that counted, it might get more hits than your web page.
I’m sorry that we didn’t cross paths when you were in Santa Monica. I share a property line with the parkland in Topanga and spend the other half of my life in NYC (yes, surrounded by cayotes where ever I go).
Bill
I wasn’t thinking so much of producing your own projects as being part of a team (DP) that occasionally got to work on a meaningful story.
While making a movie costs a lot, just putting a still shooter in a foreign conflict is big enough bucks that I don’t know any individual who can underwrite his own expenses without seriously sacrificing safety and access. As a sometimes photo boss in some of those situations I’ve been one of the folks who has worked some duplicitous schemes to keep some rather well known shooters working against the wishes of the budget conscious home office. As a shooter, there were some favorite places at times I didn’t go to because I couldn’t talk anybody into sending me.
At least stills and movies can be the same in the sense of “it costs more than I can spring for.” I just think it would be nice to work on movies because when you worked on one that counted, it might get more hits than your web page.
I’m sorry that we didn’t cross paths when you were in Santa Monica. I share a property line with the parkland in Topanga and spend the other half of my life in NYC (yes, surrounded by cayotes where ever I go).
Bill
emraphoto
Veteran
sorry if it seems i am repetitive... it is a different approach now, no doubt about it. most certainly in the case of larger budget trips where security eats up a lot of dough really fast. different, but still manageable. unless you have a very deep and respected relationship with a deep pocketed employer it now involves creative thinking. a mix of NGO, private sponsorship, possibly multiple media outlets and so on are all needed to put together the budget for one trip.
it often involves tough decisions and a lot of luck as we both know "exclusive" can double or triple the value of work.
i guess what i am getting at is that i believe there is still a can to kick in the still world. it most certainly involves low financial aspirations in life.
it often involves tough decisions and a lot of luck as we both know "exclusive" can double or triple the value of work.
i guess what i am getting at is that i believe there is still a can to kick in the still world. it most certainly involves low financial aspirations in life.
Chuck Albertson
Well-known
Well, they're docos instead of feature films, but "Gaza Strip" and "Iraq in Fragments" by James Longley may be examples of what you're talking about. Both were shot on a shoestring on video and then transferred to film for theatrical release. They involved a lot of hanging out and getting comfortable with the situation (and vice versa) and I thought they were phenomenal. "Iraq in Fragmants" was tipped by that Al Gore film for the 2007 Oscar. I doubt Longley made much money on them; at best, he probably attracted funding for future projects.
Getting back to Ken's blog post, while I'm glad to see the White House photo operation is hiring some top talent, I'm going to be pretty upset if the newspapers and weeklies cut back their own coverage and rely on government handouts, even if they're well-made handouts.
Getting back to Ken's blog post, while I'm glad to see the White House photo operation is hiring some top talent, I'm going to be pretty upset if the newspapers and weeklies cut back their own coverage and rely on government handouts, even if they're well-made handouts.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Sorry Bill I misunderstood you. I certainly think that a PJ can be part of a production, as a stills photographer. As you know Eli Reed, Eve Arnold and others have done this for many years.
I'm not so sure about the DP thing. Having seen both sides of the fence, a DP requires some very specialized skills in addition to those of a photographer. You also have the most responsibility of anyone on set. You can cut around bad acting and fix a lot in post, but if the DP screws up you're in trouble... There also exists a very Byzantine structure and hierarchy in the world of camera operators and directors of photography. In some cases you would need to join a guild or union to even be allowed to touch the camera or piece of gear in question...
Certainly. I was talking more along the lines of a personal project. As an example I went to New Orleans after Katrina and shot a personal project. Cost me about $3000 for 20 days. Not cheap, but within the reach of a mere mortal.
Production stills is a great gig if you can get it. I used to occasionally shoot PR stills for the company I used to work for. It was great to be able to wander around and stick your nose in to everything. You meet a lot of interesting people. On a big show it also pays well...
I was smack in the middle of the Westwood Village. You probably drove past my apartment a million times... I may be back in a few months for a brief stay to do a project. Perhaps you'll let me buy a soy chai late something at the Rose Cafe...
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Harry -
When I was a kid, Time-Life asked me to cover the making of Godspell on days I was in New York and not working. Although it took a little effort, I got Boris Kaufman as my standby because I heard he needed work credit to maintain his health benefits.
http://movies.nytimes.com/person/96891/Boris-Kaufman
Some of the IATSE guys (not the guy whose cousin would normally get the standby job) thought this was cool and invited me in on what was practically a no money deal.
I thought I was a crusading journalist and said, “no” (proving I was an idiot).
Later Samuel Beckett gave Donald Moffat the OK to do a film of “Waiting for Godot” with Gwen Arner directing. They asked me to be DP. I thought it was such an important project that using a first time DP would be a disaster. Again I said, “No.” (proving I was a cowardly idiot).
I don’t think anybody gets to be DP without a lot of time, a lot of work and a few lucky breaks. I have one acquaintance, Tom Stern, we were both friends of Eddie Adams, and I’m aware of the incredible work, the long time and the exceptional ability it took for him to eventually reach that position. But being a photographer, these are the guys who are my heroes. And as tellers of important stories, I think they are on the same level as my photojournalist friends and often reaching more people.
JJW
Established
The times they are a' changing
The times they are a' changing
I am not sure if being a DP is the same as being a photographer. DPs work in service to a director in assuring that his (or her) vision for the film's visuals is shot and translated properly. A photographer is generally responsible for his own vision.
If I were in your shoes at the time and at all curious about filmmaking I guess I too would have declined an offer to be DP on a production of "Waiting for Godot" but I would have taken up your IATSE buddy's deal to work on spec for the experience and insight. Worst case it would have ended up being a waste of time, but at least you could have seen that first hand.
Stills and cine are fundamentally different media. You can fly solo as a photographer. Film is a team sport. However, with digital technology the cost of shooting and producing a film have dramatically fallen, so if you have an idea or story or point of view to convey, the money is much less of an issue today than it was 5 or 10 years ago.
It is now possible to be a poet or short story writer with a video camera. In the past the only way to play in that sandbox was to aim to be a writer of best sellers or blockbusters.
The times they are a' changing
I am not sure if being a DP is the same as being a photographer. DPs work in service to a director in assuring that his (or her) vision for the film's visuals is shot and translated properly. A photographer is generally responsible for his own vision.
If I were in your shoes at the time and at all curious about filmmaking I guess I too would have declined an offer to be DP on a production of "Waiting for Godot" but I would have taken up your IATSE buddy's deal to work on spec for the experience and insight. Worst case it would have ended up being a waste of time, but at least you could have seen that first hand.
Stills and cine are fundamentally different media. You can fly solo as a photographer. Film is a team sport. However, with digital technology the cost of shooting and producing a film have dramatically fallen, so if you have an idea or story or point of view to convey, the money is much less of an issue today than it was 5 or 10 years ago.
It is now possible to be a poet or short story writer with a video camera. In the past the only way to play in that sandbox was to aim to be a writer of best sellers or blockbusters.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
That's amazing. He was the DP on 'On the Waterfront', which is one of my favorite movies. Beautifully shot and everyone was so good in that film..., even the supporting cast couldn't have been better.
I used to be in IATSE, when I was working for Disney. If I remember correctly it was about $3000 to get in and then you had quarterly dues.
I'll never forget the woman I used to have to call at their office. She had a thick New Jersey accent and although I'm sure she was a very nice lady, she sounded like you would have had your thumbs in casts if you didn't pay your dues...
Oh, Bill...
Interestingly cinematographers have had a bigger influence on me as a photographer, than many still shooters. Greg Toland (Citizen Kane, Grapes of Wrath), Stanley Cortez (Magnificent Ambersons), Charles Rosher and Karl Struss (Sunrise), Freddie Young (Ryan's Daughter), John Alden (lots of noir), Jack Cardiff (The Red Shoes, Black Narcissus) and many others.
I came to still photography through the movies. I started to shoot stills to train myself as a DP, so I could shoot my own short films. That cross over has never really left me and I believe that I tend to approach my still photography like a DP.
Unlike you, I didn't know Eugene Smith, but when I look at his work I see a director and cinematographer trapped in the body of a photojournalist.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Although singular iconic images from Gene, and a lot of other folks, are what we remember, most of these photographers were essayists. They dealt with multiple picture essays. And there is no question that laying out those multiple page stories had some parallels to editing a movie.
I was photographing Peter Weir when he was editing the "lost in the desert" sequence in Gallipoli and I made some remark about losing the line of action to show that they were lost. Initially Weir was surprised that a still photographer would know about line of action. But after we chatted a bit, he wasn't at all surprised that still photographer essayists would know all the basic editing cuts even when they didn't use the same terminology. We also discovered that Fosters is a link between motion and still.