Comments on: What’s Wrong With Photography? Haiti, and more….. http://www.100eyes.org/2010/11/whats-wrong-with-photography-haiti-and-more/ Bringing photographers together on projects of social significance Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:59:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Clive France http://www.100eyes.org/2010/11/whats-wrong-with-photography-haiti-and-more/#comment-1487 Clive France Thu, 25 Nov 2010 02:07:11 +0000 http://www.100eyes.org/?p=6433#comment-1487 I certainly agree with the final paragraphs. We need less photographs and more thought. We also need more individualism. So much photojournalism looks the same today. Much of it is very well executed; much of it is very forgettable. I certainly agree with the final paragraphs. We need less photographs and more thought. We also need more individualism. So much photojournalism looks the same today. Much of it is very well executed; much of it is very forgettable.

]]> By: Daniel Kevorkian http://www.100eyes.org/2010/11/whats-wrong-with-photography-haiti-and-more/#comment-1394 Daniel Kevorkian Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:39:58 +0000 http://www.100eyes.org/?p=6433#comment-1394 Are we all responsible? Probably yes, we are, but sure there is a major responsibility in the US press system. Do I want to blame it on the North American system? Yes. The approach is easy to describe in a short list: aggressiveness misuse of power ignorance arrogance privileges leading market position The problem is not only quality (lacking almost eveywhere), but also the globalisation of the point of view. When I buy a weekly magazine and I see in it a picture I have already seen on the web, while browsing for informations on my own, well that means that we all have a monocultural vision. Becoming a bit more critical, taken for granted the good intentions of the photographer, the real issue is: if the story has to be told over and over by the winning side, we have lost the concept of journalism. This is how history has always been told. The other point of view is what we will never have access to, give voice to the poor. Are we all responsible? Probably yes, we are, but sure there is a major responsibility in the US press system. Do I want to blame it on the North American system? Yes.
The approach is easy to describe in a short list:
aggressiveness
misuse of power
ignorance
arrogance
privileges
leading market position

The problem is not only quality (lacking almost eveywhere), but also the globalisation of the point of view. When I buy a weekly magazine and I see in it a picture I have already seen on the web, while browsing for informations on my own, well that means that we all have a monocultural vision.

Becoming a bit more critical, taken for granted the good intentions of the photographer, the real issue is: if the story has to be told over and over by the winning side, we have lost the concept of journalism. This is how history has always been told.

The other point of view is what we will never have access to, give voice to the poor.

]]> By: Stephen http://www.100eyes.org/2010/11/whats-wrong-with-photography-haiti-and-more/#comment-1214 Stephen Mon, 08 Nov 2010 03:54:49 +0000 http://www.100eyes.org/?p=6433#comment-1214 All the points are valid. The tsunami of images being uploaded can create two scenarios: 1. The profession of photography can submit to the mediocrity and get submerged, or we go back 20 years and see photo editors only accepting a handful of images for consideration to be published, digital or not. AP and Reuters have tightened up their rules in two ways that supports the second proposition. They have upped the "quality/uniqueness" yardstick, and at the same time allowed a small increase in post processing before submission. In other words thay are looking for exceptional images only now. The wheel may well go full circle where we see professional photographers only survive because of the quality and uniqueness of their images. And that's the way it should be. The days of machine gun shooting DSLRs will be over soon when you get a text from your editor saying that they only accepted two out of the 1000 images you uploaded. This is happening right now. I have a friend working at one of our daily papers. He told me that they actually have more photo editing staff now than in the film days, because its so labour intensive ploughing through the thousands of images that are submitted. When you get told to submit your best ten only, then that focusses the mind. Perhaps it will all settle down to a sustainable level...I think it will. Junk with be junked, and quality will overcome mediocrity. All the points are valid. The tsunami of images being uploaded can create two scenarios: 1. The profession of photography can submit to the mediocrity and get submerged, or we go back 20 years and see photo editors only accepting a handful of images for consideration to be published, digital or not.
AP and Reuters have tightened up their rules in two ways that supports the second proposition. They have upped the “quality/uniqueness” yardstick, and at the same time allowed a small increase in post processing before submission. In other words thay are looking for exceptional images only now.
The wheel may well go full circle where we see professional photographers only survive because of the quality and uniqueness of their images. And that’s the way it should be. The days of machine gun shooting DSLRs will be over soon when you get a text from your editor saying that they only accepted two out of the 1000 images you uploaded. This is happening right now.
I have a friend working at one of our daily papers. He told me that they actually have more photo editing staff now than in the film days, because its so labour intensive ploughing through the thousands of images that are submitted. When you get told to submit your best ten only, then that focusses the mind.
Perhaps it will all settle down to a sustainable level…I think it will. Junk with be junked, and quality will overcome mediocrity.

]]> By: marc hofer http://www.100eyes.org/2010/11/whats-wrong-with-photography-haiti-and-more/#comment-1203 marc hofer Sun, 07 Nov 2010 07:04:03 +0000 http://www.100eyes.org/?p=6433#comment-1203 I think Andy has a valid point if he says, that there is some sort of complete overexposure by the sheer amount of photographers roaming the world today. Problem is, that this are th new times of photojournalism and they won't go away anymore ( the same way as it will be standard to shoot 1000 images per day because digital doesn't cost ). But I see the fault not only with the photographers. Its also the editors, who seem to favour always a certain way of photography ( trend !? ) and if you step out of this box of expectation, you don't necessarily get exposure. Its a little bit like intellectual-incest. There are so many publications out there, where the image-language is all the same. So many new photographers don't try out anything new, but imidate what they see is successful. In photography there is the "idealistic" side and the business side. And they don't go together all the time. This gap is something the semi/professional photocommunity has to accept. But then on the other side again, we talk about a highly subjective form of work anyways, so we might have the whole discussion already ass-backwards anyways. I think Andy has a valid point if he says, that there is some sort of complete overexposure by the sheer amount of photographers roaming the world today. Problem is, that this are th new times of photojournalism and they won’t go away anymore ( the same way as it will be standard to shoot 1000 images per day because digital doesn’t cost ).
But I see the fault not only with the photographers. Its also the editors, who seem to favour always a certain way of photography ( trend !? ) and if you step out of this box of expectation, you don’t necessarily get exposure. Its a little bit like intellectual-incest. There are so many publications out there, where the image-language is all the same. So many new photographers don’t try out anything new, but imidate what they see is successful.
In photography there is the “idealistic” side and the business side. And they don’t go together all the time. This gap is something the semi/professional photocommunity has to accept. But then on the other side again, we talk about a highly subjective form of work anyways, so we might have the whole discussion already ass-backwards anyways.

]]> By: diederik meijer http://www.100eyes.org/2010/11/whats-wrong-with-photography-haiti-and-more/#comment-1194 diederik meijer Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:02:54 +0000 http://www.100eyes.org/?p=6433#comment-1194 In all due respect Andy, you're missing the point. IMHO it's not about less pictures, or more, it's about something else. I see quite a few photo essays and I think the issue with a lot of them is they are purely image focussed, either provoking emotions, either finding aesthetics where they were never searched before. Richard Mosse - Grand Voyager, Sunni Triangle, 2009. Digital C-type, 72 x 96 inches, see it here: http://www.theemptyquarter.com/newsletters/parisphoto2010.html is a fine example of the latter. This creates a paradox, because the harder pro photographers work this way, the less general print media will be able to support them. The result of that is visible for a number of years now: documentary photography populates the walls of museums and galleries and the rise of awards all over the world. It is a very nice demonstration of the fact that people are very good at creating exactly that which they are trying to avoid - unintentionally, but still.. Very few photographers seem to take the time to really tell a story, they don't seem to research the background of the situations they're photographing. They seem totally image-focussed and do not write an interesting article or produce an audio piece that provides the same context. But the images only do not tell us the story and most of the time, do not get viewers engaged with the subject, they do not create a relationship between viewers and the subject matter of the images. The general public, who is ultimately at the paying end of anything anybody wants to feed it through print or online media, will only be able to have such a relationship, if there is some kind of connection between their own experiences (or their fears, desires etc) and that which is shown in the images. And the more extreme the situation photographed, or the farther away, the more important good writing or audio becomes, in order to do that. Now taking the Haiti example, that means really telling one or more person's stories in a way that allows the public to connect to the Haitians' predicament. Many photographers I see working treat their story introduction and caption texts as something that is necessary, but far less important then the visual quality of their work. To me, that doesn't make sense at all in a time and age where visual quality is no longer a distinction between pros and amateurs, as your post unintentionally indicates. Photographers who cover a place like Haiti, did not need to worry about contextualizing their work in the past, there were reporters present to handle that part of the job. So in short, the reality of the situation is that a lot of photojournalists are not journalists at all, because they don't pay enough attention to contextualizing the stories in a way that makes them interesting for the audience they are catering to. This is logical, because photographers are not trained as journalists. By the way, I have read many comments and opinions about the situation of the Haiti women who was rescued and photographed by so many. I would be very interested in hearing her own opinion on the situation, to me, it's the only opinion that really counts, as far as ethics are involved. In all due respect Andy, you’re missing the point. IMHO it’s not about less pictures, or more, it’s about something else. I see quite a few photo essays and I think the issue with a lot of them is they are purely image focussed, either provoking emotions, either finding aesthetics where they were never searched before. Richard Mosse – Grand Voyager, Sunni Triangle, 2009. Digital C-type, 72 x 96 inches, see it here: http://www.theemptyquarter.com/newsletters/parisphoto2010.html is a fine example of the latter. This creates a paradox, because the harder pro photographers work this way, the less general print media will be able to support them. The result of that is visible for a number of years now: documentary photography populates the walls of museums and galleries and the rise of awards all over the world. It is a very nice demonstration of the fact that people are very good at creating exactly that which they are trying to avoid – unintentionally, but still..
Very few photographers seem to take the time to really tell a story, they don’t seem to research the background of the situations they’re photographing. They seem totally image-focussed and do not write an interesting article or produce an audio piece that provides the same context. But the images only do not tell us the story and most of the time, do not get viewers engaged with the subject, they do not create a relationship between viewers and the subject matter of the images. The general public, who is ultimately at the paying end of anything anybody wants to feed it through print or online media, will only be able to have such a relationship, if there is some kind of connection between their own experiences (or their fears, desires etc) and that which is shown in the images. And the more extreme the situation photographed, or the farther away, the more important good writing or audio becomes, in order to do that. Now taking the Haiti example, that means really telling one or more person’s stories in a way that allows the public to connect to the Haitians’ predicament. Many photographers I see working treat their story introduction and caption texts as something that is necessary, but far less important then the visual quality of their work. To me, that doesn’t make sense at all in a time and age where visual quality is no longer a distinction between pros and amateurs, as your post unintentionally indicates. Photographers who cover a place like Haiti, did not need to worry about contextualizing their work in the past, there were reporters present to handle that part of the job. So in short, the reality of the situation is that a lot of photojournalists are not journalists at all, because they don’t pay enough attention to contextualizing the stories in a way that makes them interesting for the audience they are catering to. This is logical, because photographers are not trained as journalists. By the way, I have read many comments and opinions about the situation of the Haiti women who was rescued and photographed by so many. I would be very interested in hearing her own opinion on the situation, to me, it’s the only opinion that really counts, as far as ethics are involved.

]]> By: Bill Smith http://www.100eyes.org/2010/11/whats-wrong-with-photography-haiti-and-more/#comment-1187 Bill Smith Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:16:01 +0000 http://www.100eyes.org/?p=6433#comment-1187 Great post. Less is more. Great post. Less is more.

]]> By: What’s Wrong With Photography? Haiti, and more….. | 100Eyes | The Click http://www.100eyes.org/2010/11/whats-wrong-with-photography-haiti-and-more/#comment-1185 What’s Wrong With Photography? Haiti, and more….. | 100Eyes | The Click Fri, 05 Nov 2010 14:20:26 +0000 http://www.100eyes.org/?p=6433#comment-1185 [...] What’s Wrong With Photography? Haiti, and more….. | 100Eyes Photo Magazine: Showcase for Contemp... This entry was posted in Photography. Bookmark the permalink. ← Dear Edward Burtynsky, [...] [...] What’s Wrong With Photography? Haiti, and more….. | 100Eyes Photo Magazine: Showcase for Contemp… This entry was posted in Photography. Bookmark the permalink. ← Dear Edward Burtynsky, [...]

]]>