In 'reportage' its easier to photograph negative things

[OurManInTangier]

I hope you don't mind me adding to your input Simon, I just thought Id make it easier for others to find Thomas's amazing body of images. So here's the link to his sight.

http://www.thomasstanworth.com/

Of course not🙂 I should stop posting whilst on my phone, it's too easy to miss things out.

Without intending to be critical as I think it is a natural direction to move towards, my fear is that by relying less on mainstream media and instead seeking out information on the web, you will find yourself pulled towards views and reports that sit comfortably with your pown redisposed positions, with no need to acknowledge uncomfortable truths or contemplate alternative points of view.
As it stands at the moment I would think that the major source of web based news and reliable information will be sourced from print based journalism, but as newspapers fail, and online subscription models still with low take up rates, where will the journalism of the future come from. Will we all end up in our own little corner of the web reinforcing our own particular views and prejudices.

Excellent point.

 

[mdarnton]

This sounds more like it's about what moves YOU.

Sorry I meant good photography. Technically great images that move you in a positive way.


I don't just mean taking pictures of balloons and fairs.

 

[Murchu]

Without intending to be critical as I think it is a natural direction to move towards, my fear is that by relying less on mainstream media and instead seeking out information on the web, you will find yourself pulled towards views and reports that sit comfortably with your pown redisposed positions, with no need to acknowledge uncomfortable truths or contemplate alternative points of view.
As it stands at the moment I would think that the major source of web based news and reliable information will be sourced from print based journalism, but as newspapers fail, and online subscription models still with low take up rates, where will the journalism of the future come from. Will we all end up in our own little corner of the web reinforcing our own particular views and prejudices.

Your first point, I am not so sure about. It is hard to ignore big stories and uncomfortable truths on the web, in fact as seen from time to time, there is a lot of uncomfortable news stories that only get a full airing on the web. In many cases, the web tends to give you everything, warts and all, when it comes to big news items, where the broadcast coverage of the same news item may be dumbed down, or in the recent case of Istanbul pretty much overlooked by mainstream news media. Sure, it may be easy to bury your head in the sand by being selective about news sources and where one looks for ones news, but equally, one can get a proper balance of news, and sidestep avoid the biased reporting of many news media by broadening ones sources through the web.

Your point about failing print media is a relevant one, but to be honest, even if that happens, by having a much broader sample of news sources, each with their own bias and all, then I would be of the opinion I can make an informed decision. In addition, I would argue most people can reinforce their own views and prejudices quite easily already through selecting the news channels that suit ones self, and the web changes nothing. For example, how many people already get their news solely through fox news for example, or entirely via tabloids..

 

[aizan]

it's not harder. the market for all "good" news is just smaller. there is a ton of positive reportage just the same.

 

[bobbyrab]

I think you make a lot of good points, although I'm surprised your being based in Ireland you've found the Istanbul story overlooked, I thought the coverage would be broadly in line with what's available in the UK. I've learned more from the BBC, Times and Guardian than I have from the web, it's been a leading story here from the start.
Also by mainstream media I exclude red tops and more populist news shows. Anyone questioning the truth in what's being reported would presumably not be starting with the Sun or Fox news.
My point really is what happens in 20 years, when journalism is no longer a viable career, web content as it stands relies almost entirely on seepage from the mainstream, or from individuals who developed their skills working for mainstream media. Reliable free content on the web may already be at the high water mark.
I think we're all agreed that making a living now as a photojournalist is more difficult than it's ever been, print media are on ever tighter budgets, who knows where it will be in ten years time. One thing I'm sure of is our flight towards free content will ultimately come at a cost, but it's difficult to predict just where it will be paid.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

People's attention (including editors') are more easily focused by drama than photography itself (i.e. composition, post-processing, subject treatment, etc.)

Also, perpetuating stereotypes (misery in Africa, war in Irak, gangs in the U.S/Mexico border, amazement of seeing females as scientists, males as sensitive family caretakers) is also easier, and the market supports this.

Far easier to consume pre-digested subjects than being challenged as a viewer.

"Pretty" and "positive" is often derided. It is also much easier to photograph, believe it or not (cats, flowers, pretty girls, sunsets, clouds) but much harder to make it acceptable as "serious".

Thomas's work is one excellent example of the exception. It is indeed very hard to take/make "positive" photography that is not misconstrued as nonserious or tired.

 

[koven]

It is also much easier to photograph, believe it or not (cats, flowers, pretty girls, sunsets, clouds) but much harder to make it acceptable as "serious".

Yeah but how is that considered reportage?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Yeah but how is that considered reportage?

How is gore considered reportage? How is suffering considered reportage?

We have been conditioned to think that drama = reportage. Oversimplification, of course, but so is the question.

 

[bobbyrab]

Yeah but how is that considered reportage?

As your the originator of this thread, I would have thought you could rouse yourself to more than a seven word reply, and where did you stipulate reportagé in the initial post?

 

[koven]

and where did you stipulate reportagé in the initial post?

Its in the title

How is gore considered reportage? How is suffering considered reportage?

We have been conditioned to think that drama = reportage. Oversimplification, of course, but so is the question.

Thats a good point. I feel like reportage is an all encompassing term of capturing life naturally. Its a way of telling a story and capturing the time period. I guess you could say taking pictures of flowers or cats is capturing life but I think that is something different. Flowers and cats are just easy subjects and an excuse to your gear.

The reason I was started this thread is because of a conversation i was having my agent about so a solo show she setting up. Shocking and negative images will give people something to talk about and look at but its not something that people would buy and put on their walls. They are good for books. Its a lot harder to take a picture that makes people happy when they look at it.


A lot of the worlds most famous images give you either disgust, sadden you or give you a neutral feeling at best. Something like this is amazing, it will instantly up your spirits every time you look at it.

 

[koven]

I think its because when an image happens that just fills you with happiness. One of those perfect moments, the natural reaction is to just take in the experience rather than snap a pic.

 

[Murchu]

I think you make a lot of good points, although I'm surprised your being based in Ireland you've found the Istanbul story overlooked, I thought the coverage would be broadly in line with what's available in the UK. I've learned more from the BBC, Times and Guardian than I have from the web, it's been a leading story here from the start.
Also by mainstream media I exclude red tops and more populist news shows. Anyone questioning the truth in what's being reported would presumably not be starting with the Sun or Fox news.
My point really is what happens in 20 years, when journalism is no longer a viable career, web content as it stands relies almost entirely on seepage from the mainstream, or from individuals who developed their skills working for mainstream media. Reliable free content on the web may already be at the high water mark.
I think we're all agreed that making a living now as a photojournalist is more difficult than it's ever been, print media are on ever tighter budgets, who knows where it will be in ten years time. One thing I'm sure of is our flight towards free content will ultimately come at a cost, but it's difficult to predict just where it will be paid.

All good points, and things I would worry about too.

Re: print news media, I suspect many of the newspapers that will ultimately remain may be local papers, where the news items carried in them, are not freely available otherwise. Where I am in Ireland, is one of the smaller cities, and most local news is gotten via the radio, or one of the two local papers, so suspect the local paper will probably always have a future.

Re: Istanbul, not so much poor coverage here in Ireland, but rather that many had issues getting coverage of it is an example to me, that relying on even big media is not infallible for remaining informed all the time. I do like the Guardian, and would worry for the world if things like the BBC World News did not exist 🙂

 

[bobbyrab]

Its in the title




Sorry, my mistook.

 

[taskoni]

Homeless people, sadness, violence, unrest, dead birds, ect.


Its so easy to take a negative or shocking image. Its just a natural instinct.


Its way harder to take a picture that will make people smile.

I agree with you that might be easier as usually pictures like this carry a straight forward impact i.e. the story is already there, they rarely raise a lot of questions and you will always touch someone's heart.
Its just a natural instinct you say - if I may quote Jean-Paul Sartre who said it all - Hell is other people.
We'll never have enough of this as we need to see more pain in order to realize that there are worst things in life than our own fears and sad moments.

I guess it is up to the photographer's mood as you see both sides of the coin every day. The photographer makes the choice where to point his camera arguably to express his own mood or thoughts or feelings.
To relate, otherwise why bother?

Regards,

Boris

 

[shadowfox]

the world is a pretty unhappy place

Life is a series of despair vs hope "matches" or "fights".
Whether we become desperate or hopeful depends on what we believe.