bmattock
Veteran
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Thanks for that Bill.
Good article and just continues to reinforce my current belief on "photojournalism" in today's culture.
The concept that a person, who raises a camera to their eye OR even has their hands on a camera when walking down a street can 'blend into the background' or is 'incognito' is a load of horse dung. The general public are FAR more camera aware today than they have been at any time in history and the prevalence of digital cameras makes it all the more difficult to capture the moment as it happens without someone in the scene being aware that their photo is being taken.
I've found that the best tool for street photography now is no longer a film Leica but a small digital P&S. Go figure.
Cheers,
Dave
Good article and just continues to reinforce my current belief on "photojournalism" in today's culture.
The concept that a person, who raises a camera to their eye OR even has their hands on a camera when walking down a street can 'blend into the background' or is 'incognito' is a load of horse dung. The general public are FAR more camera aware today than they have been at any time in history and the prevalence of digital cameras makes it all the more difficult to capture the moment as it happens without someone in the scene being aware that their photo is being taken.
I've found that the best tool for street photography now is no longer a film Leica but a small digital P&S. Go figure.
Cheers,
Dave
victoriapio
Well-known
Appreciate the link. Very interesting.
I got a degree in Photojournalism from University of Texas and spent 20 years living off my cameras. In college were taught to capture the moment, keep it real. But photo editors typically want more and just as there is little to no real objective written journalism any more, the same can be said of photographs. Photo editors can select/reject photos (perhaps better/worse than the photo that is actually used) that do not fit the political stance of the publication, the story subject or the "slant" of the article they will accompany. That is the real world.
The Capra photo is very polarizing because of his fame and IMHO, because posing someone's death in war clearly crosses the boundary of journalism ethics, although it appears there are very few "ethics" left in journalism. I have a hard time believing Capra posed it but evidence certainly opens up that possibility.
I got a degree in Photojournalism from University of Texas and spent 20 years living off my cameras. In college were taught to capture the moment, keep it real. But photo editors typically want more and just as there is little to no real objective written journalism any more, the same can be said of photographs. Photo editors can select/reject photos (perhaps better/worse than the photo that is actually used) that do not fit the political stance of the publication, the story subject or the "slant" of the article they will accompany. That is the real world.
The Capra photo is very polarizing because of his fame and IMHO, because posing someone's death in war clearly crosses the boundary of journalism ethics, although it appears there are very few "ethics" left in journalism. I have a hard time believing Capra posed it but evidence certainly opens up that possibility.
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I think this is an excellent example of why photos are not good at narrative. It is impossible to understand the context of a photo without explanation.
Sparrow
Veteran
Objectivity is a fig leaf that the establishment tries to put over the bits it’s embarrassed about, why on earth would a European socialist Jew try to be objective about the Spanish civil war?
Last edited:
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
And yet many are willing to stand by the age old axiom that "a picture is worth a thousand words" - go figure.
Cheers,
Dave
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Stewart,
Absolutely.
Also, 'objectivity' is meaningless. You can't report/photograph EVERYTHING: you have to decide what's relevant. As soon as you do, someone is going to scream that you are no longer being 'objective'.
My wife, who lived the first 30+ years of her life in the United States, believes that Americans are far more seduced by the myth of objectivity than Europeans.
Cheers,
R.
bmattock
Veteran
And it is this which makes the often-heard tirade against digital photography meaningless. The one which claims digital photography cannot be 'true' like film photography, because it can be so easily manipulated and it does not have the authenticity or inherent trustworthiness of film.
JohnTF
Veteran
I believe your words to be poorly chosen and your reasoning to be suspect -- simplistically smearing the whole history of photojournalism, in tactics very similar to those you purport to deplore.
I suppose Capa was not objective with his D Day photos as well, are you suggesting that the same photographer cover "both" sides in a shooting war simultaneously?
I do not think Franco and his Nazi/Fascist allies overall are favorably recounted in history along with the rest of non- "European socialist Jews" historians' general accounts of Fascism of this period.
In journalism, the goal was to be objective in that words and photos portray as accurately as possible what actually occurred at the time of the event, while being a bystander or witness if you will. If you can interject some art in to it, you may be considered a better photographer or writer. Observing something changes it, but the degree is what is important. I doubt that the Zapruder film changed much of what really happened in Dallas. I do not know if Abraham Zapruder was a socialist, never occurred to me to think much about it.
With the alleged, by some, "staged" shot of the soldier dying, Capa may have been in the process of shooting one thing, troops training, but by all accounts the soldier did die by enemy fire at that moment. His name is known and witnesses accounts recorded, some quite recently. I somehow doubt the sniper knew Capa was there and vice versa.
The lines today are certainly blurred between opinion and fact in terms of contemporary reportage, leaving what passes today in all areas of journalism in a different view. Interesting that this comes up the week that Walter Cronkite dies. I really have no other examples handy with any confidence of straight news.
At the very least it is a style change, at the worst "news" today is simply an op ed story marketed sometimes as news. Unfortunately much of photography is so common and photographers numerous as to almost create the event it is supposed to cover.
This does not change what happened in front of the cameras during many historic moments, nor does it release observers from thinking critically regarding the data they are presented with.
Sorry for the long post.
Regards, John
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Check out the photographs by Jerry Uelsmann, the photography prof at the University of Florida. Lots of books and on-line pix. They were done with a Bronica and three enlargers, not P-shop back when PC stood for Politicaly Correct and Apple was a fruit.
Can we say that "photojounalism" should encompas the pictures we have in our minds, recording them for posterity?
Can we say that "photojounalism" should encompas the pictures we have in our minds, recording them for posterity?
Sparrow
Veteran
I don’t deplore anything I just hold an opinion, as you do, I simply don’t believe in objectivity.
And I can make a bloody strong case for asserting that both the dissident group of radicals displaced Jews and the odd middle-class Frenchman who took those pre-war photos around Europe, and the readers of Picture Post understood those prejudices at the time.
Had, Cronkite been reading the news the day after Pearl Harbour how do you think it would have gone? Much the same as the day before?
JohnTF
Veteran
Roger, it may well be that we, in general, are far more easily seduced by everything here at times.
The eventual saving grace, if any, may be that we strive to get much of things right. The process may be corrupted beyond repair.
Our intentions are often clouded by the flood of conflicting data.
In the past, when I was shooting a group of people at an event, with a few drinks under their belts, and was critically focusing at wide open, (think old days, slow films, no WA lens, large groups, 25 feet) looking for people poorly positioned or with their hand in front of something they appeared to be scratching, someone would try to hurry me ( one or two minutes was far too long) , and I used to nicely reply, they could have it fast or they could have it good, my job was to get it good.
I find it appalling that the news media solicit "Tweets" etc. during most broadcasts, the "best" to be read at the end. What kind of significant "poll" or conclusions to some developing worldly event could be added in several minutes, and anonymously? Bit hard to look at the quality of the source, or the selection process? The evolution of style over substance occurs very quickly.
I see much of this style spreading very quickly over Europe during my last 20 years of visits.
Regards, John
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Good article.
It made me think of 911.
It made me think of 911.
JohnTF
Veteran
I believe in thinking critically, and choosing words carefully.
Cronkite was one of the originals who did much more than "read" the news.
You left out the socialist Britains and New Deal Democrats from your group? Perhaps there were a few more people involved in setting the stage for the disasters of those times.
I think you focus too much blame on too few select groups, or it appears that way, almost in a conspiracy theory plot.
Have no idea what you reference in your Pearl Harbor quote. As I understand it, there was no real national news desk at that time, and I do not think Monday Dec. 8 was a typical Monday.
Regards, John
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
John, I’ve come to the conclusion that photojournalism was corrupted by objectivity not the other way round.
When the press were freed at the end of WWII, they went back to work telling stories with pictures and even more annoyingly along came TV with more pictures, civil rights, industrial disputes, Suez, Vietnam …. And politicians reacted by denigrating anything that wasn’t “objective” what other defence had they?
So in the end we got Sky and you got Fox, and I go to the FT for my news because I know what angle it’s coming from
I was making the point that Cronkite would have been as effected by circumstance as they were, one or two of his Vietnam stories actually were.
Capppa, et al, at the time were really the only mass media there was, I believe you to be under estimating their importance.
regards
When the press were freed at the end of WWII, they went back to work telling stories with pictures and even more annoyingly along came TV with more pictures, civil rights, industrial disputes, Suez, Vietnam …. And politicians reacted by denigrating anything that wasn’t “objective” what other defence had they?
So in the end we got Sky and you got Fox, and I go to the FT for my news because I know what angle it’s coming from
I was making the point that Cronkite would have been as effected by circumstance as they were, one or two of his Vietnam stories actually were.
Capppa, et al, at the time were really the only mass media there was, I believe you to be under estimating their importance.
regards
Last edited:
emraphoto
Veteran
forgive me Fred but you're not a robot.
i have seen things that have swayed my heart and mind in directions i didn't want them to go. it is a natural process.
where the media industry must step up is understanding what they ask of the men and women who do these jobs. they have created a ferociously competitive environment, have shown there willingness to abandon the people (for "citizen" journalism) who have committed their lives to school, ethics and often lay their lives on the line for the story. this in turn has put a LOT of pressure on folks to produce razzle dazzle.
i have seen things that have swayed my heart and mind in directions i didn't want them to go. it is a natural process.
where the media industry must step up is understanding what they ask of the men and women who do these jobs. they have created a ferociously competitive environment, have shown there willingness to abandon the people (for "citizen" journalism) who have committed their lives to school, ethics and often lay their lives on the line for the story. this in turn has put a LOT of pressure on folks to produce razzle dazzle.
MinorTones
Well-known
As a working photojournalist myself this is the crux of a huge problem in my opinion. At least from what I have seen in my five years in the American newspaper industry.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Competition in a two paper town did tend to keep things more honest but it sure as hell made life miserable for the local political structure. That was a good thing. Now it's looking like soon there'll be no newspapers left at all. Local TV coverage is pure crap.
40oz
...
what I want to know is who decided that "photojournalism" is the same thing as actually being there? I mean, some pictures were taken. Who actually thinks those pictures were of a crime scene, as it were, and not intended for publication from the get-go? Why are people constantly stunned by the revelation that scenes are often arranged to make a good shot? What did they *think* the photographer was doing out there?
I just think it's stupid to expect any published photo or article to be unvarnished truth.
Why do people blame the U.S. American media for their own obsession and ignorance? I don't get it. I read my local paper daily, and make a point to sample news from various sources on a regular basis to be sure I am getting a variety of viewpoints. I cannot grasp the mentality of someone who blames other people for their unwillingness to exercise their own mind. It's one thing to disagree with an opinion, quite another to blame a media outlet for your continued support.
I just think it's stupid to expect any published photo or article to be unvarnished truth.
Why do people blame the U.S. American media for their own obsession and ignorance? I don't get it. I read my local paper daily, and make a point to sample news from various sources on a regular basis to be sure I am getting a variety of viewpoints. I cannot grasp the mentality of someone who blames other people for their unwillingness to exercise their own mind. It's one thing to disagree with an opinion, quite another to blame a media outlet for your continued support.
Last edited:
emraphoto
Veteran
believe it or not there is a code of conduct when one speaks of journalism. of course if we closed all those schools then perhaps the code would no longer be relative.
now one thing to keep in mind is that there are hundreds, if not thousands of working photojournalists out there. many are doing very, very important work and remain dedicated to "truth". i would suspect more than those that choose to stray from the "truth". i would never expect anyone to be a blind follower and on the flip side i wouldn't expect anyone to allow isolated cases to taint a whole field of people. it is right to condemn and ALWAYS question what you are looking at but much as you remain entrusted to you family doctor, despite many documented character flaws within that career path, it would be in everyones best interest if journalists were afforded the same.