"Every new technology is an amputation."
- Marshall McLuhan
What is the downside of the digital revolution? That was Jeremy's question.
My argument is the loss of a viable career option for the vast majority of photojournalists will ultimately result in a loss of visual literacy in the culture as a whole.
Besides the obvious - untrained citizen journalist that don't know the ethical boundaries that traditional photojournalists live by. (By and large, there are of course examples of traditional pj's blurring the lines or out-right manipulating images. However, the price paid if caught is very steep.)
But beyond the ethical and technical concerns there are issues of quality. Sure you can get a freebie photo from the internet, and maybe it will be good. However, since when is good enough the same as good? Sure, perhaps you can't afford Ron Haviv or James Nachtwey, but don't you want to put the best image possible with your words?
Take the recent scandal at Atlantic. They hired noted commercial photographer Jill Greenberg to take photos of John McCain for their cover. Of course she's talented, she produces remarkable photos. But that doesn't mean she was the right photographer for the job. Is she a journalist - No. Does she work by a journalistic code of ethics? No. Has that cost the Atlantic? You bet. See Michelle Malkin's blog on the topic: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/14/the-atlantic-should-have-googled-jill-greenberg-before-hiring-her/
Has that hurt all photographers? Oh yeah! See PDN article: http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/09/how-jill-greenb.html There are always multiple considerations, one too easy to forget is: will the photographer have the right business and people skills to handle the assignment?
What about the visual history? Sure there are MILLIONS of photographs of the towers collapsing on 9/11. Just like there are thousands of photos available of the RNC in St Paul, any given concert, sporting event, presidential campaign stops. But what about smaller stories? What about things the average person probably isn't going to either stumble into or willingly go into? What about war coverage? Leper colonies? TB camps? Tsunami zones?
Certainly there are amateurs with a natural eye, however the professional shooters images of the events listed above are almost always light-years ahead of the amateurs shots, and with much greater consistency.
For my additional sources I'm planning on talking to photographers. One is a local freelancer that shoots editorial and specializes in music - Tony Nelson. Another is an editorial/commercial photographer that started out as a music photographer - Jay Blakesburg. I'm going to try to talk with one or two Strib or PiPress shooters. And if my connections work out I'm going to try to talk with one of the guys at the very top - Ron Haviv, of VII.
Additionally, I'd like to interview the director of the Missouri Photo Workshop and see how they think the change is impacting them and if they are changing how the workshop is run.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I strongly agree with your comments--especially the part about commercial photographers making images for journalistic purposes.
I have been writing a lot about style lately for my Assignment 2 paper. It took me many, many years of consistent shooting to develop my style--something that no amateur could hope to develop by making a few photos here and there. Style becomes a signature in a way. Those photographers who have had great success are identifiable by their images--a certain something that is unique to them. Look at any two pros that have photographed the same subject and the images with have very distinct differences in content, composition, and feel. Each time I have tried a new field of photography, I have had to learn to develop a new style and methodology of how to work within that field best. When I was an amateur, I had some successes, but they were more accidents than consistent production. I learned from those accidents and became more consistent. In support of your argument: while 30,000 people may have taken a photo at an event, a few may have the "lucky accident," but we shouldn't settle for that as a journalistic standard.
This collection of photos on the Boston Globe's web site might serve to illustrate your point. These are beautiful photographs documenting history. Even I can see they are a cut above what the typical amateur captures. They are all taken by professional photojournalists, as far as I can tell.
Post a Comment