Pal said:
>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. This is a question of perspective. Speaking as a photojournalist I'd say that a larger percentage of wedding photography sucks because it all looks the same. The same might be said for product photography. Most nature photography sucks because it doesn't have people in it, just rocks and trees. How interesting is that Ansel Adams guy anyway since everything he did was in black and white? You get my point. >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. Artistic value is not at the top of the list for photojournalism. By the standards of photojournalism a perfectly composed and exposed photograph of my sister's 3rd birthday is not as good as a grainy, blurry photo of the assassination of JFK. Mind you, this is frustrating to those of us who are in the profession. It's not that composition and other "artistic" features are not valued, its simply that news value is more important. If you happen to be on a small-time beat, you rarely get prizewinning photos because nothing particularly newsworthy happens no matter how good you might be as a photographer. A lot of day-in day-out photojournalism is actually better "artistically" than the big-time prizewinners, since it shows what the photographers can actually do with their craft when they don't have to get the big-news shot. Guys get paid for consistently bringing back the big news, though. It's not nearly as easy as it might seem. Most "great" photographers would not fare well photographically or physically if dropped into the situations that photojournalists often wind up in. Often getting any shot at all is an accomplishment, and that explains why some technically mediocre photographs are deemed important. A lot of the "craft" portion of photojournalism is also pretty subtle, and often overlooked by the reader. This is sometimes the intent. I HAVE noted that styles of photojournalism differ among cultures, countries, and venues. Some DO seem to go in more for the shocking disasters. The work I have seen from the modern American greats (Carol Guzy, James Nachtwey, Tim McCurry) shows significantly more depth and craft. Its also worth noting that photojournalists have less control over the circumstances of their photography than almost any other kind of photographer. This does not help the technical or artistic merits of photojournalism at all. This is in some portion deliberate, as having control over the subject and circumstances tends to erode the credibility of the photographer as a reporter of the unadulterated truth. >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. I must admit I've never understood "street photography". It is in some ways, as I understand it, almost the antithesis of photojournalism. I've never tried it, though, so I can't really say much about it. DJE
