Paying for journalism

jtk · Sep 11, 2018

Wikipedia often gets a bad rap. I use it regularly and cautiously. At worst its a handy superficial tool for research.

It's a digital phenomenon. That makes it's easy to cut/paste/modify to create false ideas. Falsely crediting Wikipedia.

For example, here's what Wikipedia actually says about "photojournalism." Just fyi.

removed account4 · Sep 11, 2018

wikipedia is what it is and isn't what it is and might be something else to someone else
someone on this website claimed recently that wikipedia was the greatest thing ever ( my paraphrase )
i think like everthing it is to be taken with a grain of salt ...
i hear more of the world is run by alternative facts ..

to quote the guru david byrne

Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around

Bob Carnie · Sep 11, 2018

slackercrurster said:
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.

I have been following your work for quite a few years now and I always have liked what you do.

Bob Carnie · Sep 11, 2018

When I go out to shows, I do not take business cards as it looks like I am trolling for business, I am an active photographer/printer of my own work and obsession and I find that just saying my name is much easier than handing over a card with all my details/code/ crap. If I had a website of my personal work I would consider just handing a card with that site on it so the people I meet see me differently.

jtk · Sep 11, 2018

Bob Carnie said:
When I go out to shows, I do not take business cards as it looks like I am trolling for business, I am an active photographer/printer of my own work and obsession and I find that just saying my name is much easier than handing over a card with all my details/code/ crap. If I had a website of my personal work I would consider just handing a card with that site on it so the people I meet see me differently.

Makes a lot of sense to me.

My card isn't a "business card" ...it's a "hey, we met, I enjoyed our moment, contact me if you want" kind of thing. It can't direct people to my work because my work isn't online...no website...just name/phone/email. Back when I shot professionally my biz card had a beautifully lit product photo (a paint roller) and that, plus the fact that the recipient met me and had seen my portfolio, brought business. For about 5 years that card cost me nothing because printing a couple thousand had tagged along in the same 6 color litho run with a beautiful brochure for a paint company client.

jtk · Sep 11, 2018

. Wickipedia.org

Many things are getting better...and many words mean more every day. "Journalism" and "truth" for example.

DDTJRAC · Sep 11, 2018

Bob Carnie said:
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.

That is nice. I used to do the same with people providing their bodies for photos. But they don't seem to be interested nowadays.

DDTJRAC · Sep 11, 2018

jtk said:
"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.

Dunno, really never thought about it. I lump it all in the same boat. But as I said, dunno.

DDTJRAC · Sep 11, 2018

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

That's right! I say the same thing about religion.

If no one is paying you, you can define and do as you like...as long as it is legal.

I tell you guys (and any gals here) that all the time. If it is legal, do as you like.

DDTJRAC · Sep 11, 2018

Is there a set of list of rules everyone follows JTK? If not, I'd put it in the story what everyone was paid...if payment had to be made to get the photo.

My rule is: does the post processing make a material change to the honesty of the photo. I'll clone out a stray cig butt or water bottle if it distracts. But if it is material to the photo, as in crime scene, I'd leave it 100%.

But as was mentioned earlier, I make the rules, I'm not working for anyone. And if I was working for someone, I'd give em the same thing. I'm not the type of photog that likes to work in the field shooting things they don't like just for $. I do it for love, so I do it as I like. I guess that is why I never amounted to much with jobs and following the rules.

With nature films, sometimes the scenes are coached or slightly staged to some degree. If the nature films are 75% real, that is fine with me. Are they doing their best to tell an honest story of hard to get footage? I guess what it all boils down to is; Is it more real than fake?

Sirius Glass · Sep 11, 2018

Photojournalism and pseudo wedding photographers ... where do GWCs fit in?

removed account4 · Sep 11, 2018

Sirius Glass said:
and pseudo wedding photographers

pseudo wedding photographers who get paid $20-35G / wedding ????

billbretz · Sep 11, 2018

slackercrurster said:
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.

Paying a fixer to help is a lot different than paying a subject. Bottom line, if you want to be considered a serious and ethical journalist you will not pay subjects. I'm not saying you want such consideration, but the ethics haven't changed because it's only a buck.

Sirius Glass · Sep 12, 2018

jnanian said:
pseudo wedding photographers who get paid $20-35G / wedding ????

Who said pseudo wedding photographers aka GWCs get paid $20G to $35G, not me. GWCs just want bragging rites on the internet.

jtk · Sep 12, 2018

slackercrurster said:
That is nice. I used to do the same with people providing their bodies for photos. But they don't seem to be interested nowadays.

Reminds me that I owe prints to a couple of folks. Maybe they don't give a damn...but I do anyway. It's surprising where referrals sometimes come from, even when you don't need or want them. What goes around comes around, karma etc.

Alan Edward Klein · Sep 12, 2018

Weegee, the cigar chomping news photographer in NYC during the 1930's and 1940's, did a lot of murder shots. There was one where the photo showed a bloodied mafia gangster dead on the ground in the back garden of an Italian eatery with his cigar still in his mouth. Many have speculated that it was Weegee that added the cigar after the shooting to spice up his photo for the newspapers. He denied it of course. Quite a character, Weegee was.
https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...9/weegee-murder-photographs-pictures-new-york
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...egees-new-york-street-photography-in-pictures

DDTJRAC · Sep 12, 2018

If the type of work I do is not journalism, then maybe thread should be called 'paying for documentary photos.'

faberryman · Sep 12, 2018

slackercrurster said:
If the type of work I do is not journalism, then maybe thread should be called 'paying for documentary photos.'

Since you titled your rules "Hierarchy of Documentary Photography" maybe it should.

Colin Corneau · Sep 12, 2018

slackercrurster said:
That is nice. I used to do the same with people providing their bodies for photos. But they don't seem to be interested nowadays.

Really? You'd think work of your calibre would be met with some gratitude....even the gesture is a very respectful thing to do.

jtk · Jun 26, 2019

jtk said:
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.

Just being redundant (for the sake of clarity).

....and, regarding Wiki: I use it sometimes, but only as a shortcut to sources.

jtk · Aug 3, 2020

slackercrurster said:
Just remembering this brilliant post.

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.

Paying for journalism

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency