On 13/12/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: >I agree with most everything you've said except that, for the most part, I >don't think the photos are particularly good. Quite a few wouldn't work at >all without greater context or without an explanation. While they may be >representative of the event for which they were taken, composition, >storytelling, and the ability to make me feel something is lacking.
What about considering a news photo just as one would consider any photo - letting it stand or fall on artistic merit alone? Does a news photo have to tell the whole story within the image? Most news photos accompany text detailing the story. A shot of a decrepit 3rd world mother and son lying by the roadside cannot necessarily place them geographically on the planet, nor indicate immediately what disaster has befallen them. Sometimes maybe we could just look at the picture in isolation, just examine it as an image. The pic of all the bodies laid out with ice on them (pic 11) to me is a beautiful, if haunting, photograph. When I looked at the images the first time, i didn't read any captions. I just looked at the pics. <http://www.time.com/time/yip/2005/index.html> > >There are those who subscribe to the idea that news and PJ photos need only >deliver the information, however, I believe that a photograph, regardless >of its purpose, needs more. It needs a strong image, that sense of >composition I mentioned, and an unquantifiable "something" that brings >forth the feeling that the photographer cared about the people and the >situations depicted in each image as well as the ability to draw the viewer >into the image, making him or her care and feel strongly about the subject. >There were but one or two photos that did that for me. Understood. Yeah, the hit rate for me was low. I liked half a dozen, which out of 24 is poor. > >While the mediocrity of these images stands out like a sore thumb, I cannot >point a finger only at the photographers. I believe the editors and the >publishers are at least as responsible. I believe that a lot of editors >these days are not well versed in what makes a photograph a good or a great >photograph, just as I believe many photographers are incapable of >understanding what elements are needed to make a truly good photo. That's because editors and publishers produce their output with peers and contemporaries in mind, not the readership. They basically produce the magazine for themselves, and the public assume this is what they are meant to like, and some buy it. I don't! I know it's a bit unfashionable to like Nat. Geo, but for outstanding photography from across the world, full of great pics, I can't fault it. I hardly ever read the articles, just love looking at the pics :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
