analog cameras & films in modern photojurnalism and documentary ?

[Pawel Kwiecien]

Do u know does anybody who is using analog gear for PJ and documentary photography ? I know that digital has taken over magazines and papers but do u know people who do pj and documentary on film and could u provide some links to their web sites ?


p.

 

[Chris Lange]

Tyler Hicks is one of them, he uses a Hasselblad Xpan for a some of his work.

 

[CGW]

For starters, Shelby Lee Adams and Ed Burtynsky for doc work.

 

[Darkroom317]

I am a photojouralism student. While I use digital for the student newspaper I work for. I often use film for more long term documentary purposes. I took a film camera with me when I went to cover the occupy protest in my city. These are more for galleries than they are for publication as news. If I was doing a long magazine project with no quick deadline, I would probably use film.

 

[summicron1]

there's a guy whose name escapes me who, a year or so ago, was using a Holga to shoot combat in Afghanistan. He had an image published in Newsweek and when I saw it I knew it was a holga shot and looked him up. Googling "holga afghanistan" I find several Holga people working there...

 

[BradS]

David Burnett

http://www.davidburnett.com/portfolio.html?folio=Galleries

 

[Gadfly_71]

Ken Light still uses a Mamiya 6 as far as I know. I took a short workshop that he put on a few years ago and he had nothing nice to say about digital. A former classmate of mine was interning for him a year or so ago and was doing his printing. So I'm pretty sure he's continued to eschew the digital workflow...

 

[Russ - SVP]

I believe that even the great Sebastio Salgado has gone digital too. :-(

 

[rolleiman]

I believe that even the great Sebastio Salgado has gone digital too. :-(

I believe he has, because at one time he had a whole batch of fast black & white film ruined by a rogue X-ray machine while passing through an airport. I suspect also demands from editorial markets may have had something to do with it. I'm a ex-pro who retired early, I can tell you that no magazine or newspaper that I know of will even want to look at your work unless it's on digital......on some newspapers the picture desk staff are so in-experienced they don't even know what a contact sheet is, let alone knowing how to read one!.......

It's nothing to do with whether digital quality is better or worse than film....digital is the new political mantra....it cuts costs...(no need to have darkroom staff etc.etc.)..that's all that seems to matter today.

As for me, now that I'm (thankfully) out of it, I could hardly wait to ditch my (unreliable, battery dependant) digital gear, and return to my mechanical film Nikons and Rolleis.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think the instant news cycle is a bigger factor than X-rays and film. One is much more likely to lose images because of a data/storage problem than from X-rays. But now, photographers reporting from the field have to get images edited and up and ready for print and the web ideally within hours of when they were taken to be newsworthy and commercially viable. For that kind of reporting, there just isn't time to scan film. After 48 hours, it isn't news. For longer term documentary projects, it's a different story.

 

[rolleiman]

I think the instant news cycle is a bigger factor than X-rays and film. One is much more likely to lose images because of a data/storage problem than from X-rays. But now, photographers reporting from the field have to get images edited and up and ready for print and the web ideally within hours of when they were taken to be newsworthy and commercially viable. For that kind of reporting, there just isn't time to scan film. After 48 hours, it isn't news. For longer term documentary projects, it's a different story.

Losing images due to data storage problems is a major problem with digital. Some images I shot around 9-10 years ago have gone "corrupt". It seems entirely arbitary, some images are OK, other are not, yet they were all saved at the same time in the same way. What is going to happen to historical archives for the future?....Yes I know the advice is to keep resaving digital images every few years or so. But in reality, has anyone got the time or even the inclination to do this? It takes enough time to constantly download and save new images, without having to constantly resave a growing library of older stuff.

I still shoot film and scan for stock libraries, but here in the UK, anything in the editorial field, whether instant news or long term feature work is expected to be on digital........if you don't shoot digital, you don't work.

 

[Darkroom317]

I think the instant news cycle is a bigger factor than X-rays and film. One is much more likely to lose images because of a data/storage problem than from X-rays. But now, photographers reporting from the field have to get images edited and up and ready for print and the web ideally within hours of when they were taken to be newsworthy and commercially viable. For that kind of reporting, there just isn't time to scan film. After 48 hours, it isn't news. For longer term documentary projects, it's a different story.

You're exactly right. I have to have stuff in either next day or immediately. It is the time factor that has killed film for photojournalism. Also, departments are caring less and less about good photography. They want you to be able to write, take photographs, shoot video and use social media. One of my journalism instructors had us use Twitter during assignments. During one assignment, I was taking photos. recording audio, writing and posting on Twitter.

We had an incident between a frat house and occupy protesters. I turned in the photo that day, 30 mins after it happened. It was supposed to run next day but didn't. When I saw the newsstand I was both furious and horrified. A photo of the protest earlier with fewer people and nothing going was on the cover. We ran it the next day. It happened on Tuesday, we ran it Thursday.

By then it was already old news. Everyone had seen it because someone with an Iphone took photos and posted them on Facebook. Then through re-posting and word of mouth, the local broadcast stations found out about it and it was all over from then on. Our newspaper had been scooped because of a poor editorial decision. The frat had already been sanctioned for their actions and the controversy was over. Even if we had ran it Wednesday. People would have already seen it because of the immediacy of smartphones and social media.

There just isn't time anymore. I am truly afraid for my future profession.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

We are rapidly approaching a time when the entire concept of "news" will no longer hold any meaning. The former "fourth branch of government" will very shortly finish being reduced to a bunch of anonymous people shouting at each other over the Internet, using a never-ending kalidescope of cheap new communication gadets, each person (and gadget) trying to one-up the others. And every "news" conversation will begin and end with the phrase, "You're such an idiot!" Or "jerk!" Or whatever.

Think about it. We're almost there right now...



Ken

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There's a CNN template in iMovie video editing software for any citizen journalist with an iPhone who wants to submit.

I recently shot a video for PR purposes on my iPhone even while I had a much fancier DSLR around my neck, just because it was more important to edit and post it to YouTube immediately, than it was to have the best quality.

 

[markbarendt]

Many wedding photographers fall into this category in practice.

Jose Villa is one. http://josevillablog.com/

Welcome to APUG.