Przemek
[' o°]
Looking through Reuter's picture of the year 2009 gallery I've stumbled upon this still. Can this be called photography?
Video gear is getting smaller and smaller and having better image quality every year. Is this the future in photojournalism? Spray and pray that you can catch this special (decisive) moment out of milions of frames you caught?
I'm curious about your oppinions.
Video gear is getting smaller and smaller and having better image quality every year. Is this the future in photojournalism? Spray and pray that you can catch this special (decisive) moment out of milions of frames you caught?
I'm curious about your oppinions.
Arjay
Time Traveller
The picture of the polar bear, as well as the picture of the two fighting donkeys with the boy falling off certainly would be a lot easier to take using some kind of high-quality video camera.
But finding the decisive moment isn't alway a question of timing. More often, the point in a good (and in journalist's terms meaningful) photograph lies in finding a symbolic representation of a situation. Just look at the Bangladeshi migrant worker who shows his empty purse - no video camera would have been useful there. The photographer has to have an idea or jump at an occasion that develops.
I think that for PJ work, the photographer must always first have an idea of what he wants to show before he makes a picture. Just using a video camera to shoot machine-gun style may yield a decisive moment, but doesn't solve the idea problem.
The actual journalist's part is to find an interesting image idea - what kind of tools he uses to shoot it is secondary. So, photojournalism isn't dead - it will only die of image editors forget about their standards.
But finding the decisive moment isn't alway a question of timing. More often, the point in a good (and in journalist's terms meaningful) photograph lies in finding a symbolic representation of a situation. Just look at the Bangladeshi migrant worker who shows his empty purse - no video camera would have been useful there. The photographer has to have an idea or jump at an occasion that develops.
I think that for PJ work, the photographer must always first have an idea of what he wants to show before he makes a picture. Just using a video camera to shoot machine-gun style may yield a decisive moment, but doesn't solve the idea problem.
The actual journalist's part is to find an interesting image idea - what kind of tools he uses to shoot it is secondary. So, photojournalism isn't dead - it will only die of image editors forget about their standards.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Beginning of the end?
No. That was digital in the 1990s. Wait: no. It was the Leica in the 1930s. Wait: no, it was the Anschutz focal-plane shutter in the 1880s...
Cheers,
R.
No. That was digital in the 1990s. Wait: no. It was the Leica in the 1930s. Wait: no, it was the Anschutz focal-plane shutter in the 1880s...
Cheers,
R.
tcline
Member
I would rather see that video still than 75% of what gets posted here.
Przemek
[' o°]
What I ment was: this is a still taken from a video and is presented in a gallery of photographs. There's no need for sarcastic comments. Just wanted to know your opinions on this, afterall it's one of the biggest press agencies in the world.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Fred, the photo says it came from Reuters TV. I think thats why the OP thinks it came from a video camera.
antiquark
Derek Ross
I think the OP was referring to this picture below. I figure lots of people didn't see that picture due to browser and flash incompatibilities.
I have no problem with the media using a video capture. It would be impossible for a traditional photographer to get this image, unless they were prescient.
I have no problem with the media using a video capture. It would be impossible for a traditional photographer to get this image, unless they were prescient.
Attachments
snausages
Well-known
What if the idea is, "I'd like to capture this image." I think a lot of great photographers have thought no further while shooting. The process and technique may differ, but I don't think the frame rate of the camera (what's the line between a 10 fps still camera and a video camera?) has much bearing on the meaning of the image.
punkromance
Poor art student
It's a horrible photo to look at. You rarely (if ever) see moments like that caught by still photographers. It was the first photo in a long time that's made me stop and re-evaluate my perception of something.
You think of a suicide bomber and instantly hundreds of photos spring to mind of the aftermath. Body parts scattered around, the black skeleton of a vehicle torn apart, mothers crying holding their dead child. You get the idea. These are all images that don't take too much looking around to see - they pop up frequently on the bigpicture for example (an excellent site for those who don't know about it) and we can become almost desensitised to them.
This was the first time I can remember seeing a photo of an actual explosion and it shocked me.
We are a long, long way from getting video cameras with stills to rival those of proper cameras, so I don't think they'll be taking over any time soon, but photojournalism is about reporting events. Why sacrifice a powerful image for the sake of the medium it was shot with. Further more, why worry?
You think of a suicide bomber and instantly hundreds of photos spring to mind of the aftermath. Body parts scattered around, the black skeleton of a vehicle torn apart, mothers crying holding their dead child. You get the idea. These are all images that don't take too much looking around to see - they pop up frequently on the bigpicture for example (an excellent site for those who don't know about it) and we can become almost desensitised to them.
This was the first time I can remember seeing a photo of an actual explosion and it shocked me.
We are a long, long way from getting video cameras with stills to rival those of proper cameras, so I don't think they'll be taking over any time soon, but photojournalism is about reporting events. Why sacrifice a powerful image for the sake of the medium it was shot with. Further more, why worry?
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
It's not the beginning of the end of photojournalism, it's past the end of photography in general. Nobody actually cares about photography other than photographers. We've gone beyond post modern to post photography. Images are only eye candy to the majority of the population.
victoriapio
Well-known
What is bringing about the end of photojournalism is the internet and all the free news and photos available there. Video technology, cell phone photos, etc still require someone to press the button. Just as press cameras went from speed grahics to rangefinders to SLRs, technology always brings about different ways to capture images.
But newsrooms are shrinking, photo staffs are disappearing and money for freelance photojournalists is almost completely gone. The internet has almost completely wiped out the traditional "advertising" business model that paid for newsrooms in both print, radio and television broadcast media.
Also on the bear photo - as was mentioned - bears are not the only animals to do this. All the big cats do similar behavior when they take over new territory and want to mate with the females. By killing the young the female goes into heat again and the "new territorial males" can mate - the end result being their offspring survive, but not the offspring of the weaker male that was driven out. Not every species do this but it is quite common in the wild.
But newsrooms are shrinking, photo staffs are disappearing and money for freelance photojournalists is almost completely gone. The internet has almost completely wiped out the traditional "advertising" business model that paid for newsrooms in both print, radio and television broadcast media.
Also on the bear photo - as was mentioned - bears are not the only animals to do this. All the big cats do similar behavior when they take over new territory and want to mate with the females. By killing the young the female goes into heat again and the "new territorial males" can mate - the end result being their offspring survive, but not the offspring of the weaker male that was driven out. Not every species do this but it is quite common in the wild.
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
Sad, but true. The days of big (individual) names in photography are over, barely anyone under the age of 30 seems to have even heard of LIFE magazine in the UK, let alone that they'd be able to recognise works of true genius by past masters.
For example, everyone of my generation must know something of Vietnam and WW2, but it's quite incredible how few have ever even seen the cover of Vietnam Inc., or know of Robert Capa. Contempory fashion work is probably more appealing to most that I have met.
That said, amateur photography seems to become increasingly appealing to the average consumer, and as capable equipment becomes cheaper and things like Twitter and Demotix make things more accessible, the general public may well turn to be the modern face of photojournalism.
There seems to be little space in magazines for full features by photojournalists, just as the worlds' editors seem to be increasingly inclined to copy and paste an amatuer photograph and slap it on the front of a newspaper.
I do think however, that there are still many pushing the boundaries of documentry photography and even what it means to be a photojournalist. The book is still open, and the paper yet to be exposed.
Arjay
Time Traveller
With photography being available to almost anyone - as author as well as a consumer, it has become both a medium of utter triviality as well as of documentation and of art.
Triviality: Don't misunderstand this as condescending, we all record our private memories , our families or our vacations mostly with the purpose of simply conserving moments or remembrance, most often without any claim of artistry. There's nothing wrong with that, since these pictures are quite private and have no meaning for anybody except for ourselves.
Documentation: This is what we remember from the heydays of photojournalism. I grew up on copies of Life Magazine, Der Stern (Germany) or Ogonjok (Russia), and I admired the photographers' capability to condense a story into iconic pictures, which I accepted as plain truth. Unfortunately, that sometimes wasn't true even back in those times. Today - with the availability of computer-based image editing, photography has lost most of its innocence. But so has video ... Without some form of basic imaging ethics, photography has always been, is and will always be a particularly attractive , seductive form of deception.
Art: Even more so than wet lab magic, computer-based image editing has moved photography much closer to drawing or painting, essentially making photography one of many tools that can help to produce pictures. Oddly, I feel this may be the most sincere form of photography because it doesn't pretend to be anything else than purely subjective, simply showing the artist's inner vision.
Vics
Veteran
On Saturday I was listening to On The Media (I think) on NPR and they were discussing "new media" models, mostly copy supplied by "citizen journalists" and I just went on my merry way. That evening there was a 6.5 earthquake in Eureka, CA where my daughter Amy lives. She called us in the first few moments after the event, and as she was talking to my wife, Amy was driving around shooting pics with her phone and posting them to Twitter. In MINUTES I was watching the news on CBS and they had Amy's photos up on the network. THAT's the beginning of the end of photojournalism! The 21st century PJ will have to rely on the long, in-depth assignments for his/her livelihood in future.
Vic
Vic
antiquark
Derek Ross
I read an article about Magnum (sorry, not sure where) in which they said just that. Instantaneous journalism is so commonplace, that Magnum is now concentrating on long term projects.
KM-25
Well-known
And we will be able to combat that "Freetography" amateur content with cameras that facilitate uploading as shot to a news desk, amateurs may be there along with us, but we have talent, professionalism and a nose for news, technology will allow us to fight back.
...And this technology is coming fast!
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Most here are focusing on the photo to the exlusion of jornalism. It's like my friend who, because he has a coupla DSLRs, knows how to (mostly) get a decent exposure and has traveled the world, fancies hmself a photojournalist. I'd ask him if he keeps a journal but I'd be embarrassed for him.
wgerrard
Veteran
I don't see any fundamental difference between grabbing an image from a piece of video and telling your automatic camera to run off a burst of 40 shots when you press the shutter release.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
meezy
meezy
NO. it is not the beginning of the end. it is the MIDDLE of the end.
the more camera technology advances, the less talent/skill the person wielding the camera has to have. nowadays, i think it's more about location - how remote or exotic you're willing to get - how much danger you're willing to put yourself in to get the shots that are in most demand - in war zones, for example. the closer you come to death for the sake of a certain shot, the more it's likely to be worth.
my moment of epiphany on this issue happened back in india about three years ago. some clueless dope got his hands on the most expensive dlsr sony offered. at dinner time, we were served lentils, rice, etc. and he took a picture of our meal. ...my friends - it looked like a effing work of art. he saw the look on my face, shrugged his shoulders and said, "i dunno - i just pressed the button."
this is probably going to ruffle some feathers, but anyone with an $8000 camera is going to crank out some AWESOME pictures - even if their skill level and experience is ZERO. you don't need skill anymore. the only value of photojournalists is their willingness to put themselves in the line of fire. sad truth - and this is coming from a guy who's best friends with a photojournalist. i can't bear to tell him my thoughts on the matter. he, however, was talented before digital.
the more camera technology advances, the less talent/skill the person wielding the camera has to have. nowadays, i think it's more about location - how remote or exotic you're willing to get - how much danger you're willing to put yourself in to get the shots that are in most demand - in war zones, for example. the closer you come to death for the sake of a certain shot, the more it's likely to be worth.
my moment of epiphany on this issue happened back in india about three years ago. some clueless dope got his hands on the most expensive dlsr sony offered. at dinner time, we were served lentils, rice, etc. and he took a picture of our meal. ...my friends - it looked like a effing work of art. he saw the look on my face, shrugged his shoulders and said, "i dunno - i just pressed the button."
this is probably going to ruffle some feathers, but anyone with an $8000 camera is going to crank out some AWESOME pictures - even if their skill level and experience is ZERO. you don't need skill anymore. the only value of photojournalists is their willingness to put themselves in the line of fire. sad truth - and this is coming from a guy who's best friends with a photojournalist. i can't bear to tell him my thoughts on the matter. he, however, was talented before digital.