Hi,
> It may be the way the modern photojournalist has to work,
> but this says more about the ethics of modern photojournalism
> than about quality photography.
> Photo journalism used to be about photo essays. It was about
> exploring the subject with the lens, it was telling their story.
> Now it seems to be the visual equivalent of the political sound
> bite. All form, no function, and no content. Little more than
sorry, but this is not true. Photo essays have always been just one
part of photojournalism. Weegee, for instance, didn't do essays.
Photojournalism is a broad subject, covering spot news, sports
photography, features, portraiture, essays, goofy ostriches etc.
Essays _tend_ to come into a subdivision called documentary
photography. A photo with no content will not make it in
photojournalism, where content is and subject matter override all
other considerations - except for the occasional moronic space-filling
ostrich :o). You can get a pretty good overview of what modern
photojournalism covers by looking the World Press Photo site
www.worldpressphoto.nl.
> are shooting for pleasure. So why fall into the modern PJ
> mentality? Why not fall into the older PJ mentality where
> pictures meant something about the subject?
Most photojournalists that I know or have met care very deeply about
their subject. I regularly attend shows and talks given by working
photojournalists, and I'm friends with several, and the striking thing
is how committed they are to what they do and to the people they deal
with. Your experiences may differ, of course - there are some scumbags
around too.
> our cameras. We can do it for love, which is where the term
> "amateur" originated.
Most bla, bla also do it for love. There sure as hell ain't no money
it in. They love their photography, they really know in depth the
technicalities, the history, the art, everything. Usually they take
photos _all_the_time_, not just while they're at work. Outside of work
they are often running self-financed personal projects which explore
the things that magazines etc. will no longer pay for. Long-term work
which has next to no chance of widespread exposure. Look at
www.reportage.com. Almost everything you see there is a personal
project (otherwise it wouldn't be there). Even Salgado can't funding
for his giant global projects and has to take donkey work to fund it
himself.
---
Bob
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wednesday, March 07, 2001, 1:02:58 AM, you wrote:
> What I find sad about this thread is that the PJ card got
> played immediately, like as if that is the only way to
> photograph something. "Get it now, get it while it's hot" seems
> to be the mentality. I don't work that way, I never have. I
> think that it is cheating the subject to work that way.
> It may be the way the modern photojournalist has to work,
> but this says more about the ethics of modern photojournalism
> than about quality photography.
> Photo journalism used to be about photo essays. It was about
> exploring the subject with the lens, it was telling their story.
> Now it seems to be the visual equivalent of the political sound
> bite. All form, no function, and no content. Little more than
> page filler for the vacuous minded (there's a Mafudism for
> you!).
> And how many of us (that "us" is people with cameras in
> general, not people on this list) are working photojournalists?
> Most of us don't make a living with our cameras. Mostly we
> are shooting for pleasure. So why fall into the modern PJ
> mentality? Why not fall into the older PJ mentality where
> pictures meant something about the subject?
> As amateur photographers, we have that option. We can do it
> better. We can tell the story. We don't have to play Rambo with
> our cameras. We can do it for love, which is where the term
> "amateur" originated.
> The grab shooter may get the best picture they can from a
> particular situation, but that does not mean they have gotten a
> good picture. I let more pictures get away than I shoot, simply
> because I am not willing to deliberately take bad pictures on
> general principles.
> As a bit of evidence relating to getting the best of a bad
> situation, I invite you to click on the following link:
> http://www.accesscomm.ca/users/wrobb/general/tipover2.jpg
> It really isn't a particularly good photograph. Just the best I
> got in the situation.
> I am sure that a "real" photojournalist would have done
> better. They could hardly have done worse. But a real PJ also
> does it for a living, day in and day out. I don't. Perhaps this
> says my skill level isn't up to snuff, and I would agree. My
> forte is in the field or studio with large slow moving cameras.
> It is what I enjoy, as a photo hobbiest who does the occassional
> (and getting more so every year) paying job, I have that luxury.
> I think most of us do, if we care to admit it.
> Thanks for reading
> William Robb
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
