Melchi wrote: Personally, I love photojournalism (good photojournalism) and I think it represents the highest form of photographic art. This despite the fact that I rarely do any photojournalistic photography and when I do, I don't do it very well. Most people who are into photojournalism will probably find something they like in HCB's work; I like much of it, but some of it does nothing for me. But to each his own. On photo.net, Mike Johnston railed against scenics, some people hate studio work, some people dislike "straight" photography in general, or color photography, or black and white photography, ..., etc.
REPLY: The problem I have with photo journalism is that a larger percentage of it sucks more than any other kind of photography I can think of. If you look at many of the price winning photograph in photojournalism the only merrit seem to be showing something terrible with no other artistic values. In this it has much in common with hardcore pornography. However, pornographers are not prone to utter pretentious drivel something thats quite refreshing! Also, the proponents of the related field of "street photography" (whatever that is) are often full of pretense as if their style of photography is inherently a kind of art form that is somehow above anything else. In my opinion, the oposite is closer to the truth, something thats indicated with the equipment fetishism connected to it. Pål
