Is photojournalism dying?

BobYIL

BobYIL

Well-known
Local time
1:17 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2009
Messages
1,252
View My Gallery
Dirck Halstead (The Coming Earthquake in Photography) once stated "...most of the major camera manufacturers that are now associated with still photography will probably be out of business by 2016." and "...the future photojournalists would no longer be shooting still pictures, but instead would be using video as their prime medium of acquisition."

Dirck went ahead with his predictions "The financial imperative to newspapers is clear. Their salvation, in a time of plummeting ad revenues on their broadsheets, lies with their online versions. Online demands video. For this reason, we can comfortably say that in 10 years photojournalists will only be carrying video cameras."

Yesterday Dan Chung was interviewed; he believes in "no future in photojournalism".

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9982656990/no-future-in-photojournalism-interview-dan-chung

..and what David Burnett and Kenneth Jarecke say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdOWHAeBkDA&feature=player_embedded#!

(Were you wondering of why any DSLR introduced in the last months came out with video features on par with the professional camcorders?)
 
Is discussion about stills vs video or [photo]journalism in general? Biggest issue isn't with how material is illustrated, in my understanding, but how material is prepared and how people use it. In general, masses do not need journalism anymore - all they need to know is covered online.
 
BobYIL said:
Their salvation, in a time of plummeting ad revenues on their broadsheets, lies with their online versions. Online demands video. For this reason, we can comfortably say that in 10 years photojournalists will only be carrying video cameras."
Click to expand...

It is debatable whether there will be more than ten surviving journalists, whether photo- or none, in a decade - the trend of the trade goes towards letting everything be done by a unpaid intern equipped with a compact and two years background in reading tabloids...
 
I absolutely do not believe this. Well, I don't believe it for certain values of "this". I'm not doubting online, nor digital, for photojournalism. Nor am I doubting an increasing role for video. What I do doubt is that video will displace still photography. Video may displace some usages of still photography, where immediacy is all-important. Nothing conveys immediacy and urgency like video posted very quickly after events. I think video and breaking news are a natural fit.

I think, however, that well constructed still photographs work well with more analytical pieces of journalism. A still photo doesn't take you out of the story - it can illustrate it without taking you out of the flow, and it allows you to go back and revisit the photo, just as you can go back and revisit part of the story / essay / analysis.

Of course, it may be true that even analysis ends up as video-only as we head to a post-literate age. Talking heads, constructed faux-conflict, unending BS and all. But if that takes over everything, then we're all doomed anyway, so it hardly seems like it will matter.

...Mike
 
Not dying, just changing. The way photographs are used and what they're used for is changing.

Anyone that thinks it's dying is pretty much just wrong...
 
I don't agree with this... I think all online stories would be burdensome if they were video. I've posted this opinion somewhere on the forum before, and I still believe it to be true: Reading and photography exist in a similar mental space, a speed of comprehension if you will, that is different from that of video. They serve different purposes, and require different levels of attention commitment. So long as there are written articles there will be photography: still images will always accompany the articles. Video will continue alongside, definitely expanding, but the video and stills are simply too different for one to erase the other.

Television did not kill print journalism and photojournalism, so why should online video do it now? And the drastic drop in newspaper and magazine revenue does not come with fewer people reading their product; rather more people are, but the companies who create the papers and magazines simply have not figured out how to redefine themselves to make enough money from the new system of distribution. And of a newspaper thinks that making more videos will make up for that, they have no idea what they're doing. They need to employ fewer managers and more content creators: writers, designers, information graphic creators, and photographers.

Just look at salon.com's announcement this week: they had more pageviews by producing 30% less content, and just focusing on creating good content. The New York Times is one of the last papers standing in the US, and their photojournalism is excellent.

Photojournalism and video journalism are merging for sure, as the tools merge and there is less money being spent on employing journalists of any kind. As more people have to freelance they will want more things to sell. But that does not mean that one will supplant the other. Now, future photojournalism might mostly be video frame grabs, but that's another story...
 
semordnilap said:
I don't agree with this... I think all online stories would be burdensome if they were video. I've posted this opinion somewhere on the forum before, and I still believe it to be true: Reading and photography exist in a similar mental space, a speed of comprehension if you will, that is different from that of video. They serve different purposes, and require different levels of attention commitment.
Click to expand...

I agree... I'd much rather read and look at a photo then look at a video. On CNN, I generally avoid video articles. Too time consuming.
 
Speaking as an actual photojournalist, I believe the craft will be alive and well ten years from now. Will it continue to shrink? Probably but telling stories through still images will be around for a long time to come...
 
I'm totally with Damaso on this.
Writing, images and videos communicate messages on different levels and one can't substitute another.
As long as there are stories to tell, there will be space for quality photojournalism - and the bar will be constantly set higher.

Damaso said:
Speaking as an actual photojournalist, I believe the craft will be alive and well ten years from now. Will it continue to shrink? Probably but telling stories through still images will be around for a long time to come...
Click to expand...
 
From a different point of view:

Isn't journalism already nearly dead?

If I go into a newspapershop I see:
5/10 magazines are yellow press crap, 3/10 boobs magazines, the rest Car/Bike/Games/IT Mags.
Maybe 10-15 magazines/newspapers with quality journalism.
I think, quality will survive in a niche. As the paper book will. As quality always will.
The rest I will not miss...

And I have no doubt, every guy who want to get into photojournalism after 2016 will find a camera, he can work with...
 
everything that was said in that interview can be edited out to the point where they say "determination" (last minute or so)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JoeV
Citizen Photojournalism
Replies
3
Views
923
JoeV
JoeV
J
  • Article Article
What's happening with Photographic Film in 2025? Is this robust niche still growing?
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
11K
Erik van Straten
Erik van Straten
J
  • Article Article
The Rise & Fall of the Kodak Empire:Part 2: How the Colossus of Film was broken by a disruptive technology
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
Muggins
Muggins
J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
1K
aoresteen
aoresteen
J
  • Article Article
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
2 3
Replies
40
Views
9K
Tincup
T
Back
Top Bottom