Paying for journalism

slackercrurster · Sep 10, 2018

While candid documentary photography is my goal, you can not always do justice to a subject with candid work. In this case I also paid the subject $1 for the photo. Paying $ for a story or photos is usually frowned on by professional journalists. It does not bother me, I am just paying for access. Photo is no less honest for paying the $1. The difference in ethics is; are you paying $ to manufacture a story or are you paying $ to document a story?

Here is the 'Hierarchy of Documentary Photography' which I created.

1. Candid events unfolding as they happen.

2. If it cannot be perfected or obtained as a candid, then the photo must be posed.

3. If it cannot be perfected or obtained as a posed photo, then it must be staged with the proviso it is a recreation of past events, preferably with the actual persons reenacting the events.

4. Figments of the imagination. Varies in documentary value. Can be based on pure speculation or a recount of events.

I could have got the photo candid while walking by, but it would not look the same, so I paid. If I wanted this style of shot, I could have been an asshole, squatted down, shot him and walked off without a payment. But is it worth being an asshole over a lousy buck?

A gal in Hollywood, CA got stabbed to death over that very thing.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/19/local/la-me-0620-hollywood-killing-20130620

Eve Arnold paid $1000 in the late 1959 for access in shooting her black Muslim project. ($1000 in 1959 is = to about $8,000 nowadays.)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204257504577150641295316770

This shot cost $5. Busking is their livlihood, so it is unrealistic to think they want to work for free. Kinda hypocritical how photogs complain people want their photos for free, yet the same photogs won't shell out a buck if a payment is requested. They expect other people to work for free, but not them.

Bottom line…a photo is either honest or it is a phony – paying money for access has nothing to do with it. It is the same as paying for access to get into an event to shoot. If you like the subject that much, pay them if it is required or you can pass on the shot / story if it bothers you.

nmp · Sep 10, 2018

Very interesting post. I agree wholeheartedly.

I also enjoy your circular photos....

:Niranjan.

Bob Carnie · Sep 10, 2018

A lot of good points here, I agree with this approach, I give a final print to anyone who supplies me with material for my still life shoots.

faberryman · Sep 10, 2018

When you define things for yourself, anything goes.

jtk · Sep 10, 2018

"candid documentary" isn't like "journalism."

Journalism implies or means there is a publisher...and publisher implies or means there is an editor.

The role of editor is a big deal.

removed account4 · Sep 10, 2018

Photojournalism

Click to expand...

is a particular form of journalism (the collecting, editing, and presenting of news material for publication or broadcast) that employs images in order to tell a news story. It is now usually understood to refer only to still images, but in some cases the term also refers to video used in broadcast journalism. Photojournalism is distinguished from other close branches of photography (e.g., documentary photography, social documentary photography, street photography or celebrity photography) by complying with a rigid ethical framework which demands that the work be both honest and impartial whilst telling the story in strictly journalistic terms. Photojournalists create pictures that contribute to the news media, and help communities connect with one other. Photojournalists must be well informed and knowledgeable about events happening right outside their door. They deliver news in a creative format that is not only informative, but also entertaining..

fromwikipedia

there does not have to be a editor or publisher &c
just has to be a story, and the photographer tells it

The photojournalist’s goal is to take pictures while people are not aware they are being photographed. By blending with the crowd, a photojournalist is able to capture the action as it unfolds – the true emotions, the real expressions, the happiness and joy. Instead of the traditional formal portraits and posed photos, this approach produces a more intimate, artistic take on a wedding. Photos will reflect a fleeting, unposed moment that conveys the emotions of the day.

http://thejerrymeyerstudio.com/blog...aditional-photography-which-is-right-for-you/

wedding photographers are not publishers or editors

Sirius Glass · Sep 10, 2018

I have no problem if one wants to pay people to pose a scene. I have a problem with adding or deleting significant objects from the photograph after it was taken, such as sharks jumping at helicopters.

jtk · Sep 10, 2018

The part someone hopes you'll ignore in favor of his extract from Wiki: Photojournalism is distinguished from other close branches of photography (e.g., documentary photography, social documentary photography, street photography or celebrity photography) by complying with a rigid ethical framework which demands that the work be both honest and impartial whilst telling the story in strictly journalistic terms. Photojournalists create pictures that contribute to the news media, and help communities connect with one other. Photojournalists must be well informed and knowledgeable about events happening right outside their door. They deliver news in a creative format that is not only informative, but also entertaining..

Wedding/event photography is it's own thing (or things)... some photographers style themselves a photojournalists for marketing purposes. That demeans real photojournalists.

The bride, grooms and guests at weddings and the participants at business events are dressed-up props in bought-paid-for situations, sometimes wannabe celebrities themselves...unless the photographer is an interloper who sneaks in for the food and booze.

jtk · Sep 10, 2018

jtk said:
The part someone hopes you'll ignore in favor of his extract from Wiki: Photojournalism is distinguished from other close branches of photography (e.g., documentary photography, social documentary photography, street photography or celebrity photography) by complying with a rigid ethical framework which demands that the work be both honest and impartial whilst telling the story in strictly journalistic terms. Photojournalists create pictures that contribute to the news media, and help communities connect with one other. Photojournalists must be well informed and knowledgeable about events happening right outside their door. They deliver news in a creative format that is not only informative, but also entertaining..

Wedding/event photography is it's own thing (or things)... some photographers style themselves as photojournalists for marketing purposes. That demeans real photojournalists.

The brides, grooms and guests at weddings and the participants at business events are dressed-up props in bought-paid-for situations, sometimes wannabe celebrities themselves...unless the photographer is an interloper who sneaks in for the food and booze.

slackercruster's wonderful photos are IMO, social documentary. My guess is that those shots weren't made on assignment or delivered to a publication. Whether I'm wrong or right, that doesn't take away from being records of his discoveries, relationships, and artistry.

sissysphoto · Sep 10, 2018

I believe the secret is out that you can do what you want in journalism now.

jtk · Sep 10, 2018

sissysphoto said:
I believe the secret is out that you can do what you want in journalism now.

You can "believe" whatever you want, but the reality is that "journalism" is a profession, warts and all, just as it has always been . The significance/quality of the editors et al have directly it to do with what the subscriber/whatever gets. That a politician or his masters denounce journalism is often the measure of the journalist. Politicians never praise journalism, but sometimes they do establish things that can be counted upon to praise them.

jtk · Sep 10, 2018

slackercrurster said:
While candid documentary photography is my goal, you can not always do justice to a subject with candid work. In this case I also paid the subject $1 for the photo. Paying $ for a story or photos is usually frowned on by professional journalists. It does not bother me, I am just paying for access. Photo is no less honest for paying the $1. The difference in ethics is; are you paying $ to manufacture a story or are you paying $ to document a story?

Here is the 'Hierarchy of Documentary Photography' which I created.

1. Candid events unfolding as they happen.

2. If it cannot be perfected or obtained as a candid, then the photo must be posed.

3. If it cannot be perfected or obtained as a posed photo, then it must be staged with the proviso it is a recreation of past events, preferably with the actual persons reenacting the events.

4. Figments of the imagination. Varies in documentary value. Can be based on pure speculation or a recount of events.

I could have got the photo candid while walking by, but it would not look the same, so I paid. If I wanted this style of shot, I could have been an asshole, squatted down, shot him and walked off without a payment. But is it worth being an asshole over a lousy buck?

A gal in Hollywood, CA got stabbed to death over that very thing.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/19/local/la-me-0620-hollywood-killing-20130620

Eve Arnold paid $1000 in the late 1959 for access in shooting her black Muslim project. ($1000 in 1959 is = to about $8,000 nowadays.)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204257504577150641295316770

This shot cost $5. Busking is their livlihood, so it is unrealistic to think they want to work for free. Kinda hypocritical how photogs complain people want their photos for free, yet the same photogs won't shell out a buck if a payment is requested. They expect other people to work for free, but not them.

Bottom line…a photo is either honest or it is a phony – paying money for access has nothing to do with it. It is the same as paying for access to get into an event to shoot. If you like the subject that much, pay them if it is required or you can pass on the shot / story if it bothers you.

Fine photos no matter how you identify them. Makes sense to pay occasionally, no loss of cred. Fisheye technique obviously works well...maybe it lets some subjects relax. Better than big zoom lenses.... it enforces close proximity to actual human beings.

removed account4 · Sep 10, 2018

jtk said:
Wedding/event photography is it's own thing (or things)... some photographers style themselves a photojournalists for marketing purposes. That demeans real photojournalists.

The bride, grooms and guests at weddings and the participants at business events are dressed-up props in bought-paid-for situations, sometimes wannabe celebrities themselves...unless the photographer is an interloper who sneaks in for the food and booze.

right, and you clamed there was a publisher and an editor and there ISN"T, B+G edting proofs doesn't count
and according to wiki you don't need a publisher or editor to be a photojournalist
as seen in the wiki and the wedding shooters pages
its more of a journalistic "style" not just the profession of someone working for the information sector ....

jtk · Sep 11, 2018

jnanian said:
right, and you clamed there was a publisher and an editor and there ISN"T, B+G edting proofs doesn't count
and according to wiki you don't need a publisher or editor to be a photojournalist
as seen in the wiki and the wedding shooters pages
its more of a journalistic "style" not just the profession of someone working for the information sector ....

Seems you've just agreed that journalistic "style" isn't photojournalism and a wedding photographer isn't a photojournalist. Did I misread?

It's unfortunate when a photographer needs to pretend to be a photojournalist when his/her photos aren't intended for publication... Flickr, photo books, and wedding announcements don't qualify IMO.

I rarely do photo for money anymore so my business card is only a "social card" and doesn't even say "photographer".

After all, everybody's a photographer, so why would they put that on a business card?

removed account4 · Sep 11, 2018

jtk said:
Struggled with your writing ...

LOL i have no clue what you are talking about / struggle with your posts 99% of the time.

sorry you are wrong.
yes wikipedia IS an arbiter more and more every day.

i guess you forgot what you said previously ?

jtk said:
Journalism implies or means there is a publisher...and publisher implies or means there is an editor.

and just after that i said it was a stylistic thing not an occupational thing..

i was going to post something from urbandictionary but this thread is rated G.

faberryman · Sep 11, 2018

jtk said:
I rarely do photo for money anymore so my business card is only a "social card" and doesn't even say "photographer".

What is a "social card" in 2018? I haven't seen those since the 1950s, and they were hopelessly out of date then.

jtk · Sep 11, 2018

faberryman said:
What is a "social card" in 2018? I haven't seen those since the 1950s, and they were hopelessly out of date then.

Its a simple card with contact info. They're apparently used sometimes in Japan. Seems like a good idea to me.

When I meet or photograph someone that I'd like to follow up I give them the card. They have often wanted my phone number but I want them to have my non-biz email as well.

I didn't need a card in the 1950s ...maybe my elementary school was too low brow

Bob Carnie · Sep 11, 2018

I like the idea of a social card, less formal and more inviting than a business card..

Colin Corneau · Sep 11, 2018

Nice documentary photos, but this isn't journalism or photojournalism. Paying for these is no big deal, simply because you're not presenting this as anything other than a street portrait (and indeed, in the case of the nuns, that's the whole reason they're out in the first place).

Unethical would be paying someone (or just requesting) them to do something orchestrated or choreographed, and then claiming later that it was candid or that you found them that way....seems pretty straightforward.

JTK is right, just because you label something journalism don't make it so.

Colin Corneau · Sep 11, 2018

faberryman said:
When you define things for yourself, anything goes.

YUP.

faberryman · Sep 11, 2018

Colin Corneau said:
JTK is right, just because you label something journalism don't make it so.

Perhaps that is why he did not label it journalism; he labeled it documentary photography.

jtk · Sep 11, 2018

Bob Carnie said:
I like the idea of a social card, less formal and more inviting than a business card..

Been using social cards for about 10 years... two colors, simple, modern typefaces. People always say thanks. The only downside is that people are sometimes awkward about their own card, which is always a business card...but I've given them mine in a non-biz situation. Zero downside. For a fact a couple of folks later follow up with their own social card. Some people have actual, flesh and blood friends.

Bob Carnie said:
I like the idea of a social card, less formal and more inviting than a business card..

Jaron Lanier speaks and writes about a related issue: Jaron Lanier: http://www.jaronlanier.com/tenarguments.html

...and : https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-apos-jaron-lanier-most-160500770.html

removed account4 · Sep 11, 2018

Colin Corneau said:
JTK is right, just because you label something journalism don't make it so.

i guess colin, but the web and wikipedia says so
and as pathetic as it was, i was illustrating how idiotic
all of these labels have become. i used to laugh when people
asked me if i did "corporate photojournalism" its like claiming i am
enterprise architect, ... whatever that is
these days these occupational names are a bunch of hogwash as far as
i am concerned ...
but still the wiki is the purveyor of truth and the barometer of society .
=
old classmate from nigeria gave me her
calling card .. just said her name on it
she said she used to just give them to people
would be hard to forget her or the 4 names
on her calling card...

jtk · Sep 11, 2018

faberryman said:
Perhaps that is why he did not label it journalism; he labeled it documentary photography.

Yes. I agree with what he said about his work, compared to journalism, and I admire his photos, which I posted yesterday (above for your convenience),

slackercrurster · Sep 11, 2018

I tried paying for journalism with my book project for the Red Light District in Amsterdam. But the few girls I paid all cheated me. (some were not even girls.) So I went back to my roots and shot it candid. Got lots of threats from that project.

Paying for journalism

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency