Photojournalism is Dead?

Who says I'm never going to make any money with my little project? Perhaps I'll do a book. One thing for sure is I'm not going to sit around and expect the world to lie down at my feet. So now I'm the problem :rolleyes:? How is that? I'm hustling and busting my ass documenting and being out in the field, while you're at home sitting in front of your computer, and you're telling me I'm the problem. That's rich. I will just stay on point with my little project. I sit at my computer as well, but only to get stories out and engage in self-promotion. The counterpoint is the thousands of hours I've spent out in the field being eaten by mosquitoes and burned by the sun during our short summer, and nearly frozen to death in the winter? If you only knew the miles and miles I've driven in pursuit of my project. Not to mention the gear needed to document the world as "I" see it. It's interesting to note that many of my long lenses came from newspapers upgrading to AF. The Leicas came from a photographer who "had to get a M9" he probably won't use either.



I've wrecked two cars and I don't even want to think about the gas or the time. Not to mention having my car broken into and losing a trunk full of gear. So if you're looking for a shoulder to cry on, you're not going to find it here. Take yesterday, for instance. My car is still in the shop from kissing a curb on the way when I was on my way to take some pictures. Do I sit at home and whine? No, I walk a couple of miles with the Nikkor 800 5.6 IF-ED AIS and monopod, looking for wildlife before it's all gone. No time to waste.



Nikkor 800 5.6 IF-ED AIS with TC-14C on D3, mounted on a Wimberley head and monopod.

Shot of a blue heron spearing a small furry animal (I think it was a baby muskrat) at a local pond.

It's funny, I rarely if ever see any other photojournalist in my travels. It's just me and the birds after the storm; the flowers in the field that will soon be scraped over and then turned into a parking lot; mud to my ankles and I'm soaked to the bone ... all to get the pictures. No one cares but me about how I personally suffer to do what I do. If I didn't think it was worth it, I would do something else. Like cage fighting or ...OO, whatever.

But I do think it's worth it.



Local wetland after a summer storm. It is now a new subdivision.





Another shot taken at a local pond. The land at the fringes of the city is for sale. This habitat is marked for death.



Local wildflowers on an abandoned farm now for sale and waiting to be "developed."



The same area. Notice the chemicals/paint/God knows what else left to leach into the ground.



Train wreck in Balzac, Alberta. This image was published in the local paper.
Not many 8 mm 2.8 fish-eye pictures get published in the papers.

I hope I'm pissing you off. I hope I'm making you mad. "But, but, but we're photojournalists." If you're bitching about the death of photojournalism, you're prima donnas and I know you well. Think your **** doesn't stink? Everybody's does. Cowboy up. No one cares. Least of all me. Don't be laying the "I've got kids to feed" on me. I've got children and you've got to do what it takes to keep them fed. Looking for sympathy? I'm the wrong guy.

Sorry if you're insulted by me saying you're whining. Use it as motivation. Suck it up and get to work. There are plenty of paying gigs out there if you're willing to hustle. What you guys want is for the world to lie down at your feet or bow to you because you have a camera. Hate to break it to you but it's not going to happen. Everyone has a camera. You're not special or unique. You're a dime a dozen. Just like me. Get over it. What is important is that the stories get told.

And I'll tell you something. Editors are tits. I figured that one out when I started in photojournalism over 25 years ago. The photojournalists whom I looked up to and considered "gods" were in the same situation that exists now. When I was still green and good to go, they told me that "the hours are long, the money is **** and the editors never use the best photos." Nothing has changed, near as I can tell. The pressure from competition can be a noose around your neck or a sharp stick in your ass to get you out there. Can't sell your pictures? Take ones that will sell.

Start a blog, sell advertising. Promote your name whenever you can. But keep doing and taking the images that are important to you.

It's going to get worse, not better. Especially if you let the ******s get you down. To me there is no excuse. Get the picture.









Gregory Rogalsky
 
Last edited:
Gregory, I am not sure if you are p1ssing anyone off, but I am sure you are making a fool of yourself. Your comments are so flawed, self-absorbed and poorly related to the issues raised that its not worth the effort getting into this debate in detail. Clearly you are great and everyone else should take a leaf out of your book... Equally clearly, you are the only person who 'gets it' and everyone else is just a dummy sitting in front of a computer. You are probably in the field right now as I type this proving your point. Whoopee.

May I ask if you make your entire living out of photojournalism as this is the impression you have given?

Good luck with the book.
 
Actually I was in the field when you wrote your post, making some nice images of the workers pouring concrete at a local Sobeys. They were not impressed. Too bad, it's not a popularity contest. That Sobeys used to be a field full of wild grass, foxes, rabbits and bugs.

So Turtle (is that your name, first or last?), I'm making a fool out of myself. So you say. Because I don't agree with you? Perhaps we should define photojournalism?

You make your arguments and I'll make mine. We will see how it turns out in the end. I'm not going to take it personally. I love a good argument. I love to fight ;). And I'll use this opportunity to get my message out and show my work.

What's that saying, "It doesn't matter what they say as long as they're talking?" If all you've got are insults, with nothing to substantiate your argument, then as I like to say, "Bring a lunch." I'm not saying I'm the only one that gets it. Where did that come from?
There are new markets being created all the time for photojournalism.
Photojournalism is changing. It's not dying.

It's a brave new world. I feel in many ways, I'm only just now catching my stride. I'm more excited about photojournalism than ever. I'm optimistic for the future.

Some of my older work in the "still" very much alive field of photojournalism:

















And one from last summer, taken at a local rodeo. I was told not to photograph this incident of a horse breaking its leg by several of the event photographers. And by all means feel free to delete this image. The horse had to be destroyed.



Gregory Rogalsky
 
Last edited:
Gregory said, "...the hours are long, the money is **** and the editors never use the best photos." Nothing has changed, near as I can tell."

Well, you got that part right.

PS - They told me the same thing 50 odd years ago. Did I listen?
 
Gregory,

You were making a fool out of yourself by posting a very self-focused rant about 'the whingers.' I think that was the first personal comment... aimed at everyone who disagreed with you actually (by virtue of believing that PJ is dead or that, in their opinion, the changes are not positive).

FWIW, I do not disagree that PJ is changing and would agree that it is not dead. I think the point of this thread was to discuss what that means to different people (or its death if we are referring to its traditional element which I would rephrase as 'marginalised') rather than as an excuse for self-promotion and condescension.

The fact that you are shooting merrily and moving your personal work forwards does not prove anything in relation to the original topic, examples of which might be:

  • Is paid PJ work shrinking? (if so, no matter how hard everyone tried, there will be less paid work and this will have varying impacts on various people)
  • Is the reduction of paid PJ work (rather than stock) impacting the quality, depth and breath of PJ work that we will get to see and experience in the future.
  • Will the market be able to make and sustain a good assortment of 'great names' in the future?

The fact that you may get a return from your project does not mean:

  • You will make a profit (and therefore it does not prove it is a viable source of income)
  • That others following your suggestions would be able to support themselves on it (see above)
  • That your approach would or could ever give rise to career greats in the future (unless they have a private income or alternative money making job they run concurrently).

I think we all agree that anyone can pick up a camera and go shoot PJ work to varying standards - thats pretty obvious. Some will be awful and some will be great. How can there be a debate about this? The only debate can be about whether PJ as a career or as a market is dying or changing.

You arguments show only the former: anyone can shoot PJ work if they want to enough. Of course. The more difficult and fuzzy issue is what is happening to the paid market, the people working in it, and the resultant output from the paid market.Maybe there will not be a change to the quality of work out there - the great documentary pieces, the timeless books, the exhibitions etc - there might be an argument that dedicated amateurs will produce stunning work and we will not be any worse off if the paid pros go the way of the dodo! However, I personally, believe that it takes a wee bit more time, commitment and experience to produce the very best work and doubt that many amateurs would ever get the depth of exposure required to attain the same level of some of the great names of the past and present. Some will manage to do so, but perhaps fewer and that I think would reduce the pleasure I get from seeing superb work from established photographers whose work and lives meld together I think this would be a terrible shame, but agree that no amount of talk will change the market. Everyone must adapt, but that does not mean change is something we will all welcome in this case. Especially for those who are 10-20 years into a full time PJ career and cannot support their families.

What do you think?

Is PJ your main source of income?

Re the name thing, I am entitled to use a username as you are entitled to use your real name (assuming it is). I could be famous for all you know LOL. We make a choice and have to accept others'.
 
Last edited:
Gregory, luckily your work is a little better than your attitude towards this topic and the participants . Good luck with it, hope it finally brings you some peace.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
The sad thing is that, as the use of images in all media explodes, the monetary value of the photos has declined to little of nothing. Because of the sophistication of modern cameras, everyone is a photographer. "Good enough" means "cheap enough."
Click to expand...


Mix that with the changes in the Stock Photo market in the last 5 years... there are a lot of people who think a stock photo is worth $0.75

I think the publications paying the most money for photos these days are the supermarket tabloids. Sadly, the public thirst for this kind of information will grow.

With the green movement and electronic book readers (Kindle & I-pad like devices) driving a move away from ink-on-paper; we may see bigger changes to coming.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad this discussion is getting focused.
"Your focus needs more focus" :p.
I remember years ago the Canadian Press photo of the year was taken by a passenger from a plane wreck who turned around and snapped a photo of some fellow passengers in the foreground and the burning plane in the distance. Sure, it was a lucky shot taken by an amateur. But the fact is he got the shot. I remember that press photographers were pissed. I didn't think the award needed to be confined to the ranks of working photojournalists.

Whatever that means nowadays. Like I said, a definition is needed. I know more and more photojournalists are being asked to shoot video. Are they still photojournalists or video photojournalists, or what? Image makers, tell-alls. Whatever gets the picture, tells the story, and does it right. Labels really don't matter.

I for one got a Canon 5D2 for a period of time and "went to school" in the new media of video with a 24-36 DSLR. It was fun. And even though I traded my Canon 5D2 for a mint Leica M7 :), I intend to get a D3S and continue to experiment in this new media in the near future. I will say that being able to manual focus my Nikkor AIS glass on the Canon 5D2 is a huge advantage when no AF is possible. Focusing using the chimp screen is another matter altogether :rolleyes:.



Canon 5D2 with Nikkor 400 2.8 IF-ED AIS handheld.

So I'm not surprised that editors will use photos coming from a teenager's cellphone. If the image is newsworthy, no one cares about quality.
Access is everything. "You miss 100% of a shot you don't take."

More and more public relations types and professional organizations are controlling access. I saw this coming many years ago at concerts. "What do you mean, three songs?" I want backstage. I want on the bus, I want to go where I want to go and do what I want to do :). Just like John Marshall.



I've got to go. I'll finish this later.
 
Last edited:
I think this thread should be dead before it becomes all about Gregory, or is it too late? ;-) Gotta say it was an interesting start, but I gotta bail out now before it gets too crazy...oops, too late ;-)
 
leicashot said:
I think this thread should be dead before it becomes all about Gregory, or is it too late? ;-) Gotta say it was an interesting start, but I gotta bail out now before it gets too crazy...oops, too late ;-)
Click to expand...


Ya, too bad. F8 and be there.

p.
 
Gregory, how much did the Airdrie Echo or City View pay for that photo of the train wreck? Nothing. Just a gee whiz thanks and isn't it neat to have your photo in the local paper. Doesn't put food on the table.
The argument about the future of PJ is not about gear or the unlucky guy who happened to be on that burning airplane in Calgary back in 1984 (they also paid him the going rate for the use of that photo in the Calgary Herald). This is about all those kids with cell phones snapping pictures and giving them away which dilutes the market.
I also find it interesting that with all the years of experience you have and the thousands of miles you've put in and the cars destroyed, gear stolen, that you don't have a full-time gig shooting for an agency or the big dailies or a magazine somewhere. Your dedication should have payed off by now.
 
I make my living as a (smaller) daily newspaper photographer. It's fair to say that I and my colleagues are the last of our kind, and we have the accountants to thank for that...mark my words, newspapers abandoned their readers long before readers abandoned their newspapers.

That said, I humbly suggest Neil got the thesis wrong, and he should know better. Photojournalism, as practiced for several decades, is gone. But it is living on in other forms, aided by new media and the internet.

Look at some of the collectives formed by people doing it for themselves, coming together to pursue issues the beancounters can't understand let alone fund. I offer a couple of Canadian examples, but the process is going on elsewhere.
borealcollective.com
http://www.ro6ue.ca/

And Gregory good luck to you, but quit using this forum to pimp your work...get a website and post a link, or something.
 
The only problem I have with wannabe/up and coming photographers is that everytime I meet one and we get to talking the conversation always leads to the same subject "How can I get your job?" or "Who do I talk to about a job?" and if I show them my work they think I suck and can do better and take my job away from me. What really irritates me is these aren't even photojournalists. They're "photographers" of all sorts.

The paper I used to work for is trying to replace me and their latest effort is some guy with a portfolio on model mayhem of half naked chicks whose bio reads that he's trying to branch out from car photography.

I don't even tell people what I do for a living anymore because of the reasons I mentioned. I make a decent wage taking photographs that tell stories for a newspaper I'm proud to work for. I spent a long time and did a lot of crap work to get where I am and I can say it's possible. But no one helped. No one gave me any contacts. I applied to every job I could. I worked lame assignments for a check and spent my own time covering things I felt were important and it paid off and I am really happy where I am in life.
 
as Colin has already noted, it's far from 'dead'.

There will be a large crowd that exits over the coming years blaming it on the economy, amateurs, cameraphones whatever. Only they know what's best for them.

There will also be a small crowd that will figure out how to work within the new frameworks and continue on. It is already well underway.

If I personally ever get to the point where an amateur with a celphone directly threatens my ability to earn then I suspect it will be time for me to call it a day. My job is to produce work that the amateur crowd cannot.
 
Photojournalism is dead, I must agree. Simply look around all the interest news websites, the works are like fast food, rarely you find one shot that is mesmerizing.

That being said, some commissioned work with clearly defined subjects, are still awesome. Those are produced by seasoned photographers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom