I noticed actually that there is one photographer in those hearings who is using a film camera! An older man with a tan vest/jacket has a Mamiya 6 or 7 that they have been using, I noticed it on the first day of the hearings and thought it was awesome that there will be a film record of this event too. Should provide a different look/feel compared to everyone else!
Is photojournalism really about you and about 30 other guys with the same cameras and the same lenses taking the same pictures a couple of thousand times each?
In olden days, events like that were photographed by a small number of local photo-journalists plus, in some cases, photo-journalists employed by the wire services.
For a national/international story like those hearings, a newspaper in LA or Ottawa or London would pay the wire services for the photos they used.
Newspapers can't afford to pay that amount any more.
And they also aren't willing or able to deal with the delays inherent with the wire services editing the results first, and then getting them actually on the "wire".
Most likely a lot of those photographers were independent, credentialed photographers working mostly on spec. There transfer times are close to instantaneous, and their rates are a lot cheaper than a staff photographer.
GWCs don’t have credentials.
New bureaus do not care when they do not have to pay for photographs.
New bureaus do not care when they do not have to pay for photographs.
You are not going to get into the House hearings without credentials, so in my example none of the photographers in the scrum were GWCs.
There are many instances where people don't need credentials for picture-taking. Anything newsworthy in public now generates a massive number of photos online - on Twitter, on Facebook, on Instagram -, which can be used as a source for news outlets. Photojournalists compete with endless phone cameras anywhere such credentials are meaningless.
I am not living under a rock. That's a different topic.
If you want to talk only about photographers with press passes, put that as the thread title.
For the most part, that type of press photography, then and now, is more about the theatrics of an event than it is about useful/meaningful news photography. I don’t think it ever has been a fulfilling activity for the photographers.
Now if a witness would have fainted or vomited…
For the most part, that type of press photography, then and now, is more about the theatrics of an event than it is about useful/meaningful news photography. I don’t think it ever has been a fulfilling activity for the photographers.
Now if a witness would have fainted or vomited…
I worked as a news photographer at one time. The most exciting thing to happen was usually catching a committee member dozing off. Fulfilling it was not.
have asked MattKing for instructions about how to change the thread title.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?