OT: Photojournalist triumph

C

ch1

Guest
Although undoubtedly taken with a DSLR, the Reuters photographer Andrees Latif scored a real coup in the "serious" print media today. His (her?) evocative photo of the commeration of the first anniversary of the tsunami tragedy taken in Khao Lak, Thailand managed to make it in very large (approx. 7 x 10.5 inches) size on the front pages of both the New York Times and the US edition of the Financial Times (London).

Quite a career highlight for a photographer!!

I have no connection to this photographer but thought this was worth noting.
 
copake_ham said:
Although undoubtedly taken with a DSLR, the Reuters photographer Andrees Latif scored a real coup in the "serious" print media today. His (her?) evocative photo of the commeration of the first anniversary of the tsunami tragedy taken in Khao Lak, Thailand managed to make it in very large (approx. 7 x 10.5 inches) size on the front pages of both the New York Times and the US edition of the Financial Times (London).

Quite a career highlight for a photographer!!

I have no connection to this photographer but thought this was worth noting.
Click to expand...

I am at a loss to understand what you're talking about. Photos are everywhere in every dang newspaper, and also on the front pages. So (no offense meant. Just call me an ingorant bumpkin) what's the point of this post?
 
RML said:
I am at a loss to understand what you're talking about. Photos are everywhere in every dang newspaper, and also on the front pages. So (no offense meant. Just call me an ingorant bumpkin) what's the point of this post?
Click to expand...

Whew!

Only point was that it is very rare to see the same photo appear on the front page of two "serious" broadsheets (i.e. newspapers that do not print many photos at all and are very "picky" about what they choose).

That's all.

Sorry.
 
copake_ham is right, beeing published on two independent newpapers is great for a PJ, beeing published on two independend frontpages at the same time with the same photo is something very rare.
 
copake_ham said:
Whew!

Only point was that it is very rare to see the same photo appear on the front page of two "serious" broadsheets (i.e. newspapers that do not print many photos at all and are very "picky" about what they choose).

That's all.

Sorry.
Click to expand...

No need to be sorry, Copake!

My experience is such that "serious" and "picky" broadsheets also print photos, and large ones, on their front pages. I guess I've never been much interested in either the NY Times and FT to notice they don't print photos on their front pages. Yes, I can be a Phillistine. 😀
 
Socke said:
copake_ham is right, beeing published on two independent newpapers is great for a PJ, beeing published on two independend frontpages at the same time with the same photo is something very rare.
Click to expand...

I guess you're right, Socke.

My post just shows how little I care for (pro) photogs, their work and the recognition they get (or not). I just see photos and usually don't care much for who took them. I guess that makes me a blasphemer too. 🙂
 
RML, no, you just don't know as much starving PJs who have to sell their pictures for 10 Euro each to the local paper as I do.
 
Amateur photographers stay unaware of the skills professionals must bring to their work until they actually have to do the work themselves, to pay their bills.

Some are outright disrespectful (as we see in several posts above).

Until they've had the opportunity to try, perhaps to fail, they are unaware of what's required to meet the demands of art directors and editors, and to meet those demands instantly. Professional photography succeeds or fails, it's not like amateur work that's considered "good enough" since "it doesn't matter."

Often, amateurs seem not to have the personal courage to directly compare their work to comparable images by professionals. It's more often a matter of lack of awareness of what counts in images than of jealousy, but there's often a little of that mixed in.

Few publications command the attention of intelligent readers and viewers as much as does the NY Times...a front page there means a lot. People in America who don't read the Times are poorer for it.

As for the specific image cited by Copake ...I didn't see that one but I did go back to Sunday's a couple of times...that photographer, Scott Eells, got his image on the front page of EARTH's most important print medium. The shot's not high art, it may not be something you want on your wall, and it may not have much value in the future, but a skilled professional told an important story with just one compact image. Eells is a professional, after all, and front page NYT publication is something he'll properly be proud of for a long time.
 
Last edited:
Socke said:
RML, no, you just don't know as much starving PJs who have to sell their pictures for 10 Euro each to the local paper as I do.
Click to expand...

Socke, please don't take my comments too personally. The point is, I may be a "photographer" but I'm not interested in being a professional one, and as such I just can't be bothered with the ups and downs of that profession. As much as I like tinkering with hamer and nail, I'm not a pro and I can't be bothered with the ups and downs of the carpenter business. And that goes for nearly every other business that I have no professional interest in. I care about my own profession, being a storage and backup/restore specialist for a bank, and the ups and downs in that profession, but I don't see any of you shed any tears or cheer me on, and neither do I expect you to do so. You have no connection with that world, so why would you bother.

Undoubtedly you're right that many a pro photog must necessarily sell him/herself short but I also hear and read (also here on RFF) how well other photogs are doing, racking in the dough like there's no end to it.

It's not out of disrespect but simply out of disinterest that I can't get very warm over a single photo that got printed in a newspaper twice. Hurray to the photog who got his shot printed but what about all the hundreds (thousands?) others? Do their shots suck? Or do their agents suck? Ot does their (self) promotion suck? Another poster said it wasn't a tremendously good shot. Was it a memorial one? I doubt it. Indeed, I don't get very warm over it. I do, however, fail to understand that a mediocre shot gets printed where another, much better shot might have been available. And this is an issue not just with newspaper (front page) shots but with nearly every "contest". Most winning shots are mediocre at best.
 
Often on this site I read threads discussing the work of PJ greats such as Capra.

So today, when I saw an evocative photo on the front pages of both the NYT and the FT I felt that this was an example of a PJ's work catching the attention of two of the toughest newpaper editors in the world.

Certain images "capture" the moment, as this one did. I am not a pro photographer. But as an amateur, I hope to be able to recognize it when a pro does such good work as this. I don't have a copy to post (I'm sure Reuters has it copyrighted) but I would not be surprised to see it entered for a Pulitzer.

'Nuff said.
 
RML said:
Socke, please don't take my comments too personally. The point is, I may be a "photographer" but I'm not interested in being a professional one, and as such I just can't be bothered with the ups and downs of that profession.
Click to expand...

Oh no, I don't take that personaly, luckily I'm no PJ, I'd be starving!
 
Socke said:
Oh no, I don't take that personaly, luckily I'm no PJ, I'd be starving!
Click to expand...

Glad to hear that, Socke.

To everyone who took offense to my comments, don't take it too personally.

But I'm wondering why PJs are starving? And why are most-of-not-all so eager for big honours and big riches? We all know these "honours" are rigged. Hardly any winner in any photography contest of any sort should have been that winner, being just a mediocre compromise. Galleries only display work that they can sell. Museums only put up work that will bring in sponsor money. Awards are also only handed out to get sponsors cough up sponsor money, which then flows away in all kinds of pockets and is never seen again.

Some will argue I'm a disappointed wannabee, who feels he never got the recognition he "deserves". To that argument I say: Whatever.

I am, however, seriously disappointed by what is presented as the latest greatest, which turns out to be nothing more than the emperor's new clothes. It's all a sham; a front for politics, bribery, grafting and corruption. I despise it, and seeing one mediocre photog make it big while other, more intersting, more deserving photogs never get the chance, has made me suspicious of any photog who wins honours. I just can't help thinking it was rigged game. That a look here at RFF, at Flicker, at P.net, or any other online photo forum or gallery and you'll find a dozen and more photogs who persistently produce immaculate, interesting, thought-provoking work but who never will be offered the chance to make it into the spotlights, to go for the big honours, to go for the big money. Awards org's, galleries, museum and sponsors are not interested in such work. They're only interested in money, which means they want to appeal to clients, customers and visitors, which means they have to appeal to the smallest common denominator, which ALWAYS means that mediocre dros will prevail over immaculate, interesting, thought-provoking work.

I'm happy for the photog who gets the honours and the riches. I just place big BIG questions marks by the how and why of the selection.
 
Why are PJ's starving? Hm, two reasons. There is an oversuply of people who shoot, especialy since everybody and his dog has a digital SLR today, and not enough demand for the pictures. Here in Bremen we have two local newspapers and some 100 miles around another four which belong to the same company.
Believe it or not, they pay 7 (in words - seven) Euro for a picture and they got rid of their staff some five years ago. The nationwide papers pay around 20 Euro for a picture in the local part and 100 for one in the nationwide part.

One of my friends shoots motorsports, thats where I borrow the 400/2.8 with TC2 🙂, and he gets 1200 Euro for pictures and an article from a DTM race or a national rally which takes a weekend to shoot and another two days to write.
Another does what he call "Blaulicht", thats the flashing lights on a police car in germany, and he gets up to 200 Euro for one of his pictures from crime scenes or a fire, maybe three or four times a month he is contracted by a tabloid to shoot a theme and payed 400 Euro a day. Sometimes he sits in his car for two or three days to get celbrity shot from Sarah Conor and Marc Terenzi 🙂. I just lend him my D60 since his had an error for the third time this year and his backup was destroyed when he shot some nice guys from a multinational motorcycle club and had to make a getaway. Luckily the Harley fans have grown older and are somewhat slow, else he would have lost more than the camera. He could barely afford a used 20d a 1D MkII is something he can only dream of.

In january we'll have the 42nd six days bicycle race where I manage the press center and the internet connection, databases etc. pp. We pay 200 Euro an evening for the shooters who shoot party pictures which are presented on the website, I have 20 applications from people with official press passes and another 30 from people who would work for free admission.

Tough times for PJs, especialy since quality is not required anymore.
 
RML,

I really just don't "get it". I do not have to be a painter to admire a Picasso. I do not have to be a sculptor to admire a Calder. I do not have to be a musician to admire a Copeland. So why did my simple recognition of a PJ's work that was published in two "serious" newspapers today evoke such antipathy in you?

I have no idea who Andrees Latif is. But his (or her - I'm not sure going by the "given" name) work "struck" me and at least two others (i.e. the editors of the NYT and FT newspapers).

That was the sole reason for the post - it was one of those pictures that truly spoke "a thousand words".

That's all it was.
 
copake_ham said:
RML,

I really just don't "get it". I do not have to be a painter to admire a Picasso. I do not have to be a sculptor to admire a Calder. I do not have to be a musician to admire a Copeland. So why did my simple recognition of a PJ's work that was published in two "serious" newspapers today evoke such antipathy in you?

I have no idea who Andrees Latif is. But his (or her - I'm not sure going by the "given" name) work "struck" me and at least two others (i.e. the editors of the NYT and FT newspapers).

That was the sole reason for the post - it was one of those pictures that truly spoke "a thousand words".

That's all it was.
Click to expand...

I have followed this thread with some interest. I think you are right copake_ham, that for the reasons stated by you and socke, getting published in two papers on the same day is an accomplishment. Kind of like getting published on the front cover of Time and Newsweek for the same week I guess. It is rare.

Still, I can't fault RML in his thinking either. I am much the same way as to not needing to know a lot about the carpentry business to feel I can't enjoy trying my hand at it around the house from time to time. I am not a professional photographer, and don't expect I ever will be. In fact I don't take photos nearly as often as I did some years ago.

I still enjoy it a lot, and enjoy being around others who take an interest in photography. The more serious they are the better, but just an interest is enough. I may not always agree their particular area of interest is exciting, but I will find some common ground nonetheless.

Two final comments: RML, sadly I think you are too cynical in your evaluation of photographers who make a living at photography or enter contests. Much more sadly, I think there is more truth to what you say than I want to admit to.

copake_ham, I noted you don't know who Andrees Latif is, and I guess for your point, you don't need to. I didn't either, so I googled the name. I don't think that is a starving PJ.

Just my two cents, not necessarily valid for anyone else. 😉

Edit: I just noticed that this was my 800th post. Look out Joe, I coming after ya! Only a few more thousand to go. 😀
 
Last edited:
copake_ham said:
So why did my simple recognition of a PJ's work that was published in two "serious" newspapers today evoke such antipathy in you?
Click to expand...

Because 99 out of 100 times the chosen shot has nothing to do with being the "best" but with what offends the least people or sells the most newspapers/entrance tickets/etc.

I haven't seen the published photo; nor can I, not having access to either NYT or FT. But as I said, Hurray for the photog but big fat Booh for the whole notion of these so-called honours. As I gather from Socke's story, most PJs work for peanuts. They're used and abused like a street worker, and paid nearly the same. Still, the "honours", the hope for fame and riches, (and a passion perhaps for what they're doing) keeps them going. But most will never ever gain fame and riches because they never stand a chance in this corrupt, rigged world of awards and honours. [i[That[/i]'s why it evokes such antipathy in me.

Be sure, though, that it had nothing to do with you. As it is, thanks for the HU. And sorry for hijacking your thread.
 
Copake started this thread to applaud the success of a fine photographer, not to provide a forum for whining and jealousy.

When someone says he "can't be bothered" it means he simply isn't up to the challenge.

Seems that way to me.
 
Last edited:
djon said:
Where do these twits get off, describing the work of their obvious betters (look at the galleries) as "mediocre"?
Click to expand...

I hope the "twit" wasn't aimed at me....

I don't need to be a top grade photog to know what's dros and what isn't. And yes, most galleries and museums show only mediocre dros, as are most winners of contests. The fact the winning photog might be a pro, famous or produce abundant number of books or exhibitions, doesn't make it less so. So, "obvious betters" is just a matter of opinion, your opinion, which is exactly how I'll consider and value it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom