Does photojournalism work anymore?Moderator: Moderators
Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Does photojournalism work anymore?That's the title of an interesting blog discussion at the SMH.
http://blogs.smh.com.au/photographers/archives/2008/01/does_photojournalism_work_anym.html Interesting topic and some interesting comments there as well. Cheers, André Photography, as a powerful medium of expression and communications, offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation and execution. Ansel Adams
(misc Nikon stuff)
Re: Does photojournalism work anymore?Interesting read, Thanks Andre
http://wolfeyes.com.au Tactical Torches - Tactical Flashlights Police torch rechargeable torch military torch police military HID surefire flashlight LED torch tactical torch rechargeable wolf eyes flashlight surefire torch wolf eyes tactical torchpolice torch
Thank You
Re: Does photojournalism work anymore?Thanks for posting the article. This is something which I've been thinking about a lot for the past few months.
Photojournalism will not die because of the influx of DSLRs or due to video. Photography will always captivate people in a way that video can't and vice versa. Photography, more-so photojournalism captures that single moment of humanity, culture, emotion and reality. It's also the expression of the photographer in that single moment of reality of the environment. There will always be a fear of the extinction or detriment of a particular style or artform. A classic example is painting and drawing. One of the purposes of these two artforms in the past was to record a visual image of the environment as experienced by the artist. When the photograph arrived, it was possible to capture an image of that moment within the blink of an eye. What happened to painting and drawing? It took on a new form and there are artists who still paint and draw moments in life. This style serves a purpose to everybody. Capturing an image which tells a thousand words is not an easy thing to do. Photojournalism isn't about taking photos of every random that walks by in the street. Just because there are more consumers with dslrs nowadays, it doesn't mean that everyone will end up being a would-be photojournalist. It's a style that takes years to develop. Other practical reasons why photojournalism will not die - war photography or visual reportage of a riot or violent situation. It's far easier to capture the essence of the situation with the click of a shutter than running around with a video camera - think Blair Witch or Cloverfield. How do we educate people who are so caught up in their everyday life and struggles that the world is a much bigger place out there? In this day and age, we need photojournalism to suit this purpose. Antsl (on this forum) and Steve McCurry (American photojournalist) are two photographers I regard highly in this style. There are many other photographers (Cartier-Bresson) who I find inspiring and of a level which I aim to aspire to but these are the two that popped into mind when I read this article. Hassy, Leica, Nikon, iPhone
Come follow the rabbit hole...
Re: Does photojournalism work anymore?From a personal perspective, I don't think it will die. I much prefer viewing still image galleries than "youtube" etc sites. Much more is left to the imagination, much like reading a book is a far more enjoyable enterprise than watching the movie. I think.
President, A.A.A.A.A (Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse)
Canon EOS R6, RF 24-105 F4, RF 70-200 F4, RF 35mm F1.8, RF 16mm F2.8 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
Re: Does photojournalism work anymore?I just borrow from my local library The Great Life Photographers by Thames & Hudson and I can only mourn the demise of Life magazine. These photographers and their work is an inspiration to any one; whether you like photography or not.
Re: Does photojournalism work anymore?This is a great read: http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/spe/2003/jfk/stories/063002dnmetshot.378ed.html.
I think this story illustrates the importance of good photojournalism and implies, to me, that good PJ will continue. Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Re: Does photojournalism work anymore?Cool article and cool comments.
My single thought - if we all have the attention span of four- or five- year olds (and speaking for myself : at times I do), why on Earth would I sit down and watch a 30-second clip when I could look at a single image which I can linger over as long as I feel is necessary. Photojournalism is even more important in a time-poor world. When all we have is instants, an image of an instant is entirely appropriate. Other thoughts: - taking a still from a video stream is okay, but I think there are elements of composition that are just not going to work unless you do considerable pp'ing from a video capture as well - the 'truth' of an image in an Adobe Photoshop world is an issue. I don't think it undermines photojournalism, but it may require some kind of ethics in the same way as written journalism Thanks for the link! Pentax istDS+K10D. Pentax 50mm f1.4, Sigma 10-20mm, Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, Kit Lenses. http://www.redbubble.com/people/berndt2
Re: Does photojournalism work anymore?Thanks for that link Patrick! I just bought a book of The Best of Life photos from 1936 to 1972 for $5 and it has Bob Jackson's photo in it! Would have love to have seen Beers' photo though.
Hassy, Leica, Nikon, iPhone
Come follow the rabbit hole...
Previous topic • Next topic
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|