Photojournalism (Credentialed) in the Digital Age

[MattKing]

And by the way, the type of photojournalism that brought rise to this thread is mainly directed to adding something visible to that which is mainly conceptual.
It is "adding a face to a name" type of photojournalism.
So the photographers are grabbing shots in an environment that lacks a lot of visual interest.
Sometimes, you can add weight to a story with the right choice of light and angle, but the effort is closer to portraiture than it is journalism.

 

[MattKing]

If you're not risking death you are not a photojournalist. You are just a photographer.

There are an infinite number of important journalistic stories that don't involve the risk of death for a photographer.

 

[BrianShaw]

If I had had a motor drive it would have only taken about 15 seconds, but I was shooting one at at time.

LOL... I've been using a motor drive for all sorts of photography since the 1980's and only used continuous mode once, and that was by mistake. That, also, is more about theatrics than photojournalism.

 

[Oren Grad]

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. My comment does not have anything to do with photojournalists not having jobs because of GWCs, it's about photojournalists having jobs which can't possibly be rewarding because they are all taking they same thousand pictures with the same cameras and same lenses as the other 30 guys in the scrum, and life is no better for the editors who have to wade through that morass of images.

I have a friend who does this kind of freelance PJ work in DC, is accredited and spends a lot of time on Capitol Hill. As with those who do other kinds of photography, he spends much more of his time reviewing, selecting and editing than taking pictures. He's not submitting vast streams of unselected captures in real time - that's of no use to the editors, who face their own pressures.

It is certainly a difficult way to make a living. Most of the income is derived not from immediate submission of pictures of breaking major news, but from stock photography - gradually building up a catalog of publication-friendly (i.e., technically sound and well-selected for framing, expression, etc.) pictures of public figures, so that when somebody makes news and editors need an illustration *right now*, there's something in your collection that stands out as suitable and ready to use. Of course that means you need to keep working at it, anticipating what is likely to be of interest and making sure your stock evolves to reflect who is making the news today rather than yesterday.

 

[Arthurwg]

There are an infinite number of important journalistic stories that don't involve the risk of death for a photographer.

I knew someone would disagree.

 

[faberryman]

I have a friend who does this kind of freelance PJ work in DC, is accredited and spends a lot of time on Capitol Hill. As with those who do other kinds of photography, he spends much more of his time reviewing, selecting and editing than taking pictures. He's not submitting vast streams of unselected captures in real time - that's of no use to the editors, who face their own pressures.

It is certainly a difficult way to make a living. Most of the income is derived not from immediate submission of pictures of breaking major news, but from stock photography - gradually building up a catalog of publication-friendly (i.e., technically sound and well-selected for framing, expression, etc.) pictures of public figures, so that when somebody makes news and editors need an illustration *right now*, there's something in your collection that stands out as suitable and ready to use. Of course that means you need to keep working at it, anticipating what is likely to be of interest and making sure your stock evolves to reflect who is making the news today rather than yesterday.

I am a little surprised. I would have thought the media outlet would have bought the image rather than the one time right to use it, and then kept it in their archive, so if they needed a photo of some guy they wouldn't have to phone around to photographers to find out who had one.

 

[MattKing]

I knew someone would disagree.

I have nothing but respect for photo-journalists who do risk their lives, but they are only an important fraction of the photo-journalism world.

 

[MattKing]

I am a little surprised. I would I thought the media outlet would have bought the image rather than the one time right to use it, and then kept it in their archive, so if they needed a photo of some guy they wouldn't have to phone around to photographers to find out who had one.

The media outlets don't want to spend the money for continuous exclusive use rights.

 

[Pieter12]

I am a little surprised. I would I thought the media outlet would have bought the image rather than the one time right to use it, and then kept it in their archive, so if they needed a photo of some guy they wouldn't have to phone around to photographers to find out who had one.

They keep the image, not the rights. Then reuse is just an e-mail or payment away.

 

[Pieter12]

I have nothing but respect for photo-journalists who do risk their lives, but they are only an important fraction of the photo-journalism world.

As you say, not all photo journalists cover conflicts or other dangerous situations, except maybe local government meetings and sports that can get out of hand.

 

[faberryman]

The media outlets don't want to spend the money for continuous exclusive use rights.

So ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. don't have archives; they just have photographers on speed dial when the need a photo for the evening broadcast? They look like they use a lot of the same old photos to me.

 

[Oren Grad]

I am a little surprised. I would I thought the media outlet would have bought the image rather than the one time right to use it, and then kept it in their archive, so if they needed a photo of some guy they wouldn't have to phone around to photographers to find out who had one.

My understanding is that generally they are purchasing one-time use rights.

They don't have time to phone around, and they don't need to. Photographers who are doing this kind of work sign up with stock agencies to make their digital catalogs available for easy search by editors. In return for this service of making the work readily "visible" to buyers, the agency takes a cut of any sales.

 

[Wallendo]

Although the thread title includes "digital age", I suspect part of the challenge is still photojournalism in a "video age".

A short video sound bite can be used for television and web use. A screen capture of a public video feed can probably provide adequate quality for broadcast and web usage without having to pay anybody for licensing (depending on the source of the video).

It seems like a tough, and to me boring, way to make a living. One of the reasons I shoot film a majority of the time is because I hate sorting through multiple images to find the one I like best.

 

[Pieter12]

So ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. don't have archives; they just have photographers on speed dial when the need a photo for the evening broadcast? They look like they use a lot of the same old photos to me.

They do have archives, just not the rights. Usually an agreement for x times usage or a predetermined fee for additional usage. Boilerplate contract.

 

[MattKing]

So ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. don't have archives; they just have photographers on speed dial when the need a photo for tonight's news?

They probably have photo and stock agencies on the speed dial.
I'm sure that there are some images that they decide to "own", but just like all the newspapers who discarded their libraries of negatives because of the costs of maintaining them, they are all running as small and lean as they can manage, just buying what they need and only when and for as long as they need it.
That business is barely hanging on, due to the precipitous decline in ad revenues.

 

[faberryman]

One of the reasons I shoot film a majority of the time is because I hate sorting through multiple images to find the one I like best.

There is no reason you need to shoot more images with a digital camera than you do with a film camera. If you don't want to go through a bunch of digital images don't make a bunch of digital images.

 

[faberryman]

They do have archives, just not the rights. Usually an agreement for x times usage or a predetermined fee for additional usage. Boilerplate contract.

Got it. Thanks.

 

[Oren Grad]

A short video sound bite can be used for television and web use. A screen capture of a public video feed can probably provide adequate quality for broadcast and web usage without having to pay anybody for licensing (depending on the source of the video).

Video is certainly very important now, but there is ongoing demand for higher-quality still captures - this is evident in what the media outlets are actually buying from the stock agencies.

 

[Pieter12]

They probably have photo and stock agencies on the speed dial.
I'm sure that there are some images that they decide to "own", but just like all the newspapers who discarded their libraries of negatives because of the costs of maintaining them, they are all running as small and lean as they can manage, just buying what they need and only when and for as long as they need it.
That business is barely hanging on, due to the precipitous decline in ad revenues.

No need for speed dial. The stock agencies are all online, and some clients have access to full-res, unwatermarked images. They have agreements to pay fixed (and usually lower) rates for predetermined usage. I would assume the news agencies such as AP and Reuters and others may even have subscription plans allowing access to their libraries and current events images for a monthly or yearly usage fee.

 

[MattKing]

I should have put "speed dial" in quotes

 

[Paul Howell]

When I started in the late 60s there was a distinction between news photogpghers who worked for a newspaper and a photojournalist. When working for a newspaper the vast majority of work was illustrating a story or event. Photojournalism was about telling the story with pictures, think Life and Eugene Smith. Of course the distinction is fussy, working for the wires I covered many more news stories than I was to a picture spread.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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. My comment does not have anything to do with photojournalists not having jobs because of GWCs, it's about photojournalists having jobs which can't possibly be rewarding because they are all taking they same thousand pictures with the same cameras and same lenses as the other 30 guys in the scrum, and life is no better for the editors who have to wade through that morass of images. The photographers are in grave peril of being replaced with robots. Of course the robots will need credentials to take pictures at the House hearings, so they won't be in grave peril of being replaced by RWCs (robots with cameras). I guess it is okay for the guys at Magnum. Magnum sends its photographers on assignments where there are no other cameras. There are no stories there either so the photographers have to make them up. Of course, nobody ever sees their photos unless they go to a gallery or buy the photo book off the website. Wouldn't you rather be a commercial photographer taking pictures of toasted cheddar chalupas for Taco Bell?

It is a tough career. I loved the press cameras and flashbulbs going off when I was going up, but as I got older I chose a different career and not that of a commercial photographer either.

 

[warden]

Neither of them was trying to catch a Hail Mary pass or anything.

ok that made me lol. I noticed the same.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, if this is all about the risks of being a war correspondent with a camera, and sitting in your car in a Taco Bell parking lot aiming a camera this way or that, with a few local gangbangers getting annoyed, take the war correspondent job - it's probably safer!

 

[Pieter12]

I was watching the House hearings yesterday, and there were about 30 photographers standing and squatting and generally contorting themselves in front of the witness table taking photos of the two witnesses. This was before the hearings started so the two guys were just sitting there. I swear one photographer had a 400mm lens which seemed like a bit of overkill because he was only about five feet away. Probably got some good shots of the guys' noses, assuming he could even focus that close. The other photographers must have gotten a couple thousand shots each, because they took photos for at least 5-10 minutes. One photographer had to change his memory card. I mean the two guys were just sitting there. Neither of them was trying to catch a Hail Mary pass or anything. 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? Then you have to run out in the hall and upload your photos to whatever new service you are working for, and the editor guy has to go through all of them to pick the one with the best expression. I bet he just goes through the first 10 or so, picks the best one, deletes the rest, and goes out back for a smoke. And this is playing itself out at each news service, and everyone ends up with the same photo, plus or minus six or eight pixels. How is that a rewarding career? At least with film you were limited to 250 shots, if you had the special film back. I can't remember if you had to have two battery packs for your motor drive to get through all 250 shots. Probably.

One of the challenges of being a photojournalist is trying to get the shot no one else has. That may mean a different angle (either physical or focal length) or just some kind of different take on the event, maybe not the principal player but a shot of an aide or an expression of emotion (grief, pride, anxiety) that my appear momentarily on someone's face.