Photojournalism (Credentialed) in the Digital Age

[faberryman]

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.

 

[buildbot]

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!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Perhaps the one with the 400mm lens is doing dermatological exams.

 

[faberryman]

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!

Here is an article about a guy that shoots Congress with a large format camera with a viewfinder.

Photographer David Burnett with his large-format, wooden camera was the real hero of today's impeachment hearings

Today saw the opening of the public phase of impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump. But even before the questions had started, something else caught our eye.

www.dpreview.com

 

[Pieter12]

If there's a photographer there shooting with a 400, he's going to have to shoot a lot of frames because a lot of them with be blurry.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Those who take digital shots and ship them through cyberspace should only be paid in crypto-currency, itself transported (or lost) in cyberspace. That should level the playing field.

 

[gone]

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 a word, yes. Welcome to the New Today, which is not quite like the Old Today.

Remember when Weegie could get the perfect shot using a 4x5 Speed Graphic? Or all those stunning film photos of fighters in the ring which showed us up close how brutal this "sport" really is? The list goes on and on.

It it is what it is now.

 

[MattKing]

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. Their transfer times are close to instantaneous, and their rates are a lot cheaper than a staff photographer.

 

[DREW WILEY]

My late brother often worked with a handheld 4x5 Linhof Technika. The secret? (besides rangefinder focus) - an attached Kenro gyro. Pricey gear.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Even worse the GWCs [Guy/Girl With Camera] are willing to give their photographs away just to be able to have the photographs published by news organizations. A press photographer has even more trouble supporting themselves and their families.

 

[faberryman]

GWCs don’t have credentials.

 

[Sirius Glass]

GWCs don’t have credentials.

New bureaus do not care when they do not have to pay for photographs.

 

[MattKing]

New bureaus do not care when they do not have to pay for photographs.

But those who give access to events like House Committee hearings do care about credentials.

 

[faberryman]

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. 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 photographers. 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?

 

[Don_ih]

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.

 

[faberryman]

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.

 

[Don_ih]

I am not living under a rock. That's a different topic.

Your topic is "photojournalism in the digital age". On what planet is that a different "topic"? Anyway, I was responding to points brought up by @Sirius Glass.

If you want to talk only about photographers with press passes, put that as the thread title.

 

[faberryman]

If you want to talk only about photographers with press passes, put that as the thread title.

I have asked MattKing for instructions about how to change the thread title.

 

[BrianShaw]

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…

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

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…

Aye, the images of a morass of photogs pointing their huge lenses at some folks behind a table is more impactful than anything coming out of said photogs' cameras.

 

[juan]

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.

 

[faberryman]

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 was thinking what I might do in that situation is try to get a photo of the witness with the most unflattering expression possible, and then sell it to the media outlet that tended to take the opposite viewpoint. That way the media outlet's viewers would get a big laugh during their evening broadcast.. At least some challenge would be involved, But I guess these days they just photoshop in some embarrassing stuff.

 

[faberryman]

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.

I worked on my college newspaper. I was in D.C. at the time, and it was during Watergate. One of the staff reporters got an interview with one of the senators on the committee so he took me along with him down to the Capitol. I was so nervous that I wouldn't get a decent shot, I went through a whole roll of film. If I had had a motor drive it would have only taken about 15 seconds, but I was shooting one at a time. At least I wasn't using a flash. I didn't have one. Fortunately, there weren't 30 of us all having a go at him at the same time. Some of the drama has been taken out of covering live news events because digital photographers don't use flash. They just jack up the ISO. They also don't have to put their press pass in their hatband and smoke cigars.

 

[MattKing]

have asked MattKing for instructions about how to change the thread title.

The answer is: Report the first post in your thread, and ask a Moderator to make the change.
Sometimes we will be hesitant, because of how the thread has evolved, but generally the wishes of the thread starter will be given some weight. I'll add (Credentialed) to the title here.

 

[Arthurwg]

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