The beginning of the end of photojournalism ?

[Pickett Wilson]

Photojournalism has always been "f/8 and be there." Now it's more "be fast and be there." The absolute quality of the image has always been secondary to just getting the image, for which there are many examples.

Meezy, Jim Nachtwey didn't get famous for the quality of his photos, although there is certainly that in his work. Lots of folks, as you note, can shoot clear photos these days. He is famous as a result of his willingness to put himself into situations few others are willing to. That willingness has always distinguished top notch PJ's. It's nothing new.

It's the nature of photojournalism. After half a century, I can produce technically good photos of just about anything with ease. But there is no way I'm going to deliberately put myself in the middle of a hail of bullets. So, despite my $8,000 camera, my $2,000 lens and my (and the camera's) ability to produce quality photos, I'll never be a James Nachtwey, and you'll never see war photos from me.

 

[meezy]

nor me. sounds like you and i are agreeing. i guess the "gotta be there" factor has never been as obvious as it is now.

 

[wgerrard]

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.

I'm not so sure. A camera can't make decisions about where to be, where to point the lens, and how to compose. I equate photojournalism with news, not art, so I'm sure that colors my thinking.

 

[meezy]

I'm not so sure. A camera can't make decisions about where to be, where to point the lens, and how to compose. I equate photojournalism with news, not art, so I'm sure that colors my thinking.

well, using the aforementioned "war zone photojournalist" as an example in reply to your points...

...it's not too hard to decide where to be or where to point the lens - it's where the bullets are flying, and there's bloody people and explosions everywhere. it's the place where nobody else wants to go - and that's why your pictures pay your bills.

god forbid that camera technology evolves to a point where those issues are taken care of for you as well. can't you picture the newest pro nikon with a built-in GPS to show you enemy troop movements and little red dots where explosions are happening?

as to actual shot composition, as i'm sure you know, there are already cameras out there that "suggest" to the user, in various ways, how to compose a shot so it's "right" . i guess that would be insulting to "real" photojournalist, but it is available.

i remain,

the john henry of the photography world... producing flawed "art" of questionable quality, filled with bob ross style "happy mistakes"... snapping away on my ugly, loud, heavy, limited, and clunky zenit e versus a growing army of users of automated photo-computers... the new "point and shoots".

~m

 

[meezy]

even though i hate them, i'm still probably buying one. 😉