What IS PhotoJournalism?

[dcsang]

Hmm....
I've been thinking again.

Now hold on; I know you're saying "Dave, you've got to stop that. Your head will explode ya know!" but really, this is a good one.

Recently I had the opportunity to listen to Denis Reggie talk to a group of wedding photographers. Now, Denis, in case you don't know who he is, is the guy who photographs some of the "higher end" weddings - does stuff for the Kennedy's and the Carnegies etc.

Well, Denis paterns himself a photojournalist - and I don't doubt him based on the images that he showed us during his talk. He stated: "Subject; camera unaware, unposed, capturing the moment" - this made a lot of sense and, in light of wedding photography really defines what he, and others like him, do.

That being said, I am now considering if this really is the case.

By that I will refer you to the #5 submission for the Zeiss Ikon contest. I personally think it's a brilliant photo; however, is it "PhotoJournalistic" based on the definition that Reggie gave? The subject (girl) is aware of the camera. She is looking directly at the photographer and this could/would/perhaps impact her movement during the "moment".

At the same time, is having a camera present, no matter where one is, not make people act differently if the camera is spotted but not in use? By this I mean, supposing you are at an event where you definitely see a photographer who is partaking in some hors d'ouvres. Noting the camera and photographer present at the event; does this not impact you in a way that could then cause your actions to "play to" that camera (whether it is in use or not)?

So these are my thoughts and I am left to ask exactly what everyone considers to be "photojournalism".

Dave

 

[back alley]

candid vs photojournalism

#5 is not candid but is pj

pj tells a story with pics

candid they don't know about that pic being taken

 

[taffer]

1. "Photojournalism": To keep a photographic journal ? 🙂
2. "Photojournalism": To take your journey through this life in a photographic way ?
3. "Photojournalism": Very very rare species of Siberian yak, which was estinguished long ago due to massive explotation of their fur to make the strings used to tie cardboard boxes wrapped in brown paper ?

 

[bob cole]

photojournal: think Life Magazine in the old days and The National Geographic... big photographs supported by a lively story...regards, bob

 

[ch1]

photojournal: think Life Magazine in the old days and The National Geographic... big photographs supported by a lively story...regards, bob

Or, for those in the NYC area; today's Metro section of the NY Times which has big photos of the "tram rescue drama" together with several related news and human interest articles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/20/nyregion/20rescue.html

Classic PJ.

 

[yossarian]

candid vs photojournalism

#5 is not candid but is pj

pj tells a story with pics

candid they don't know about that pic being taken

I have to agree with Joe here--even though he does like Dunkin' Donuts.

Krispy Kreme or nothing at all.

Fred (I like Good doughnuts and Bad bokeh)

 

[back alley]

i pretty much like all kinds of donuts...of course, i'm the one who had the heart attack too😉

joe

 

[Rafael]

candid vs photojournalism

#5 is not candid but is pj

pj tells a story with pics

candid they don't know about that pic being taken

I too think Joe has summed it up nicely. It seems as though the term "photojournalism" has been co-opted a bit in recent years by wedding photographers in order to describe a style of wedding photography that stands apart from the "standard." But the less-formal, more candid, more edgy style that is "wedding photojournalism" does not fully encapsulate "photojournalism." I think that any definition of photojouralism other than "telling stories through photographs" will be too narrow and too limiting. Those are my 2 cents.

 

[Stu W]

I would be the first to subscribe to Life magazine should they resurrect it. I still have several old copies. Amazing stuff.

 

[Rafael]

I am left to ask exactly what everyone considers to be "photojournalism".

Another answer would be "anything shot by someone wearing a Domke vest."

 

[Kin Lau]

PJ style as it relates to weddings is a bit different from PJ style in general as far as I'm concerned. I'm shooting a friends wedding next month, so I've been doing a lot of study in this area.

At weddings, where a lot of picture taking is going on by the photog and guests, everyone's aware that there's a camera nearby. PJ style and candid in this context simply means "unposed" to me.

 

[jan normandale]

Hmm....
I've been thinking again.

Now hold on; I know you're saying "Dave, you've got to stop that. Your head will explode ya know!" but really, this is a good one.

Recently I had the opportunity to listen to Denis Reggie talk to a group of wedding photographers. Now, Denis, in case you don't know who he is, is the guy who photographs some of the "higher end" weddings - does stuff for the Kennedy's and the Carnegies etc.

Well, Denis paterns himself a photojournalist - and I don't doubt him based on the images that he showed us during his talk. He stated: "Subject; camera unaware, unposed, capturing the moment" - this made a lot of sense and, in light of wedding photography really defines what he, and others like him, do.

That being said, I am now considering if this really is the case.

By that I will refer you to the #5 submission for the Zeiss Ikon contest. I personally think it's a brilliant photo; however, is it "PhotoJournalistic" based on the definition that Reggie gave? The subject (girl) is aware of the camera. She is looking directly at the photographer and this could/would/perhaps impact her movement during the "moment".

At the same time, is having a camera present, no matter where one is, not make people act differently if the camera is spotted but not in use? By this I mean, supposing you are at an event where you definitely see a photographer who is partaking in some hors d'ouvres. Noting the camera and photographer present at the event; does this not impact you in a way that could then cause your actions to "play to" that camera (whether it is in use or not)?

So these are my thoughts and I am left to ask exactly what everyone considers to be "photojournalism".

Dave

Of course.

 

[John Camp]

My definition of a photo-journalist is someone who takes pictures on assignment from a news-gathering organization, which intends to publish the resulting photos. The result isn't necessarily art, doesn't necessarily tell a story, may or may not be creative or even intelligent; doesn't have to meet any real quality standards except "good enough," but can be brilliant. There's no way to catagorize what a photojournalist does, except to say that it's his "job."

JC

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

For me the work of photographers like Eugene Richards (who has just joined the agency VII), Mary Ellen Mark, Kevin Carter, Gary Knight and James Nachtwey depict what good photojournalism is about
there is a good article:

James Nachtwey

and i recently read a book entitled "The Bang Bang Club -snapshots from a hidden War"
(ISBN 0-09-928149-X) by Grey Marinovich and Joao Silva, about 4 photographers covering the township war in South Africa in the early 90's.

I also posted a HU thread about Sam Abell.

 

[Contarama]

My apologies if this has been posted already...Marinovich and Silva/T. Gross interview from last thursday...

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/21/135513724/two-war-photographers-on-their-injuries-ethics

 

[35mmdelux]

See Tim Hetherington and Chris Hondros.

 

[AndySig]

I would have thought that photojournalism involves a report on a subject which has a minimum of explanatory text (perhaps even written by the magazine as opposed to the photographer) and a maximum of photographic imagery but obviously with captions where necessary.

In that sense a wedding - as discussed in the OP - could be one of the purest forms of photojournalism as most people looking at the pics won't need any accompanying explanation at all.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Journalism = telling people about something in an interesting manner. This normally involves three things:

1 A degree of empathy with the people in the report, or understanding how the issues would/might affect us

2 Living vicariously: it'll never happen to us, but we can dream/have nightmares about it

3 Pure 'freak show',

Of course all three may be present to varying degrees, as in the current royal wedding hysteria, and different people have different degrees of empathy, so the proportions will vary according to the journalist and the reader.

Photojournalism = the same thing, with pictures. Actually, it can be a single picture, just as written journalism can be a single paragraph.

The best photojournalism pretty much has to be a mixture of words and pictures. Picture-only photojournalism, without even captions or an overall rubric, is probably impossible: you need to know that Brassai was shooting in Paris, or whose wedding it was. A photojournalistic wedding is likely to be of limited interest to anyone who doesn't know the couple, and who is already familiar with that particular form of wedding (Hindu, Christian, Jewish, whatever): at best, there are likely to be a few pictures of universal appeal. A report of a totally unfamiliar form of wedding would be a lot more interesting to a lot more people.

Cheers,

R.

 

[isorgb]

Journalism = telling people about something in an interesting manner. This normally involves three things:

1 A degree of empathy with the people in the report, or understanding how the issues would/might affect us

2 Living vicariously: it'll never happen to us, but we can dream/have nightmares about it

3 Pure 'freak show',

Of course all three maybe present to varying degrees, as in the current royal wedding hysteria, and different people have different degrees of empathy, so the proportions will vary according to the journalist and the reader.

Photojournalism = the same thing, with pictures. Actually, it can be a single picture, just as written journalism can be a single paragraph.

The best photojournalism pretty much has to be a mixture of words and pictures. Picture-only photojournalism, without even captions or an overall rubric, is probably impossible: you need to know that Brassai was shooting in Paris, or whose wedding it was. A photojournalistic wedding is likely to be of limited interest to anyone who doesn't know the couple, and who is already familiar with that particular form of wedding (Hindu, Christian, Jewish, whatever): at best, there are likely to be a few pictures of universal appeal. A report of a totally unfamiliar form of wedding would be a lot more interesting to a lot more people.

Cheers,

R.

Very interesting, very. Especially sentence about only one picture in photojournalism.
I agree with it. Some events qualify to one picture. Only one picture could tell everything about situation.
What do you think?

Below scene is clear in Poland (Advent time):

 

[Roger Hicks]

Interesting. Of course the caption is to some extent in the pic, on the blackboard. It certainly shows a degree of excitement, but I think I'd be happier with a paragraph about how Advent is observed in Poland -- and also about the differences between Catholic or Polish Orthodox.

Cheers,

R.