How a photojournalist anticipates events [Archive]

sirius

01-18-2008, 10:09

Bill Pierce

01-21-2008, 09:58

Hi Bill,

I really enjoyed the chapter on photojournalism in your Leica book. I found it fascinating how you talked about there often being a pause before a moment of action, for example in a politician's speech, and that this pause can be a great moment to snap a photo.

I enjoyed this photo essay by Ed Kashi. It's fascinating to see how he thinks. You can see him developing a thought and the moment the photo peaks and becomes decisive. He shoots with bursts which, I don't know if that is his regular practice, is a little different than what I thought working pj's would do---quality over quantity and all. Well, it's full of great images...

http://mediastorm.org/0011.htm
(Warning, it's set in Iraq and has some disturbing images)

What else can you tell us about how photojournalists craft their images and stories?

First, apologies for the late reply. I've been on the road and computer time is much reduced.

As to the burst technique in Ed Kashi's Iraq essay, I think that is pretty much something he found he could do on the web. I would suspect that he did not shoot in prolonged bursts when the stories were only going to print. One often shoots a number of frames to get to that "one" image. But you are usually aware when you've got it. If you are a coward, like me, you take one more just in case, and you certainly keep the camera up to your eye until the action is over, "just in case." But in conventional media you are usually looking for that one frame that is better than all the others. And that effects the way you shoot.

As to other techniques... To me the most effective tool for doing a good story was to understand what was in front of you. On those long essay stories, I was never any good for the first few days. There some stories you are never going to understand fully taking place in cultures you will never fully understand. But I was never able to look through the viewfinder and say, "That's it." until I had some modest understanding of the subject.

sirius

01-21-2008, 12:19

Thanks Bill,

That is exactly what Gordon Parks said in this interview I recently saw.
youtube link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_RfiKNM_0M)

I appreciate that advice. I've usually jumped in when purposely trying to get a story but it doesn't leave much time to breath and think about what really matters in the story. But, now that I look back at my favorite people portraits...I realize that the camera came out after enjoying the persons company for a while and once it really felt like the time.

I remember reading about HCB saying that to make portraits you had to be very patient and then very quick. Some people break the ice by shooting any kind of photo just so that then subject gets used to you working with the camera and relaxes a little.

It's strange that no one else finds this interesting. I see that only two people have looked at this thread so far? Thinking about how form and content come together to make compelling images really gets me out of bed in the morning :)

Many happy returns from your travels...

MartinP

01-21-2008, 12:21

I'm certainly interested, but it's a busy evening !! I might have a sensible comment when I get back in later (I was one of those who looked earlier).

Bill Pierce

01-21-2008, 14:57

[QUOTE=sirius]Thanks Bill,

That is exactly what Gordon Parks said in this interview I recently saw.
youtube link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_RfiKNM_0M)]

Gordon was still in the Time-Life Building when I started. It says much about Gordon that a few years later when he met my son, I went from being Bill Pierce to being Gene Pierce's father. With a half a century difference in their ages, they still used to meet at Gordon's apartment and talk with much of the conversation not being about photography.

nikon_sam

01-21-2008, 15:33

sirius

01-25-2008, 05:19

Thanks Bill, it's wonderful to hear anecdotes like that.

Today I saw this thread on RFF that has a movie of Cartier Bresson giving a tour of his contact sheets. It's great to watch. I like to see how he didn't just take one photo, for the most part, but would get a visual idea, start working on it, and it would culminate in a moment. There are a lot more photos in a series that I would have expected. I guess that would help a photograher avoid those minuscule flaws that can happen in a photo, like the blink of an eye.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=733408#post733408

I'm an amateur, but I would like to start making some photo essays on things that interest me. I like that these wonderful and unexpected photos can come out of situations you place yourself in. How would you set up a story? Would you ask the subject if you could do a photoessay and then just spend time following them around until the ideas started flowing? I always wonder how involved the photographer is with his subject when he/she is doing a story. I imagine that there some sly direction, oh could you start doing this or that, there's nice light over here, etc...

Any insight to give?

Bill Pierce

01-25-2008, 10:22

How would you set up a story? Would you ask the subject if you could do a photoessay and then just spend time following them around until the ideas started flowing?

First time around, i wouldn't do a story on a specific person. Less intimidating would be an essay on a place. Pick a tourist place where people with cameras are common. When I'm in the area, I like to stroll the Santa Monica Pier or the tourist area in Lower Manhattan on the East River. No one notices one more tourist photo nut unless you are using an M8. Then every Leicaphile will ask you how you like it.

The high level of human activity guarantees that there will be things worth shooting. You won't know what these are until they happen, but, guaranteed, they will happen.

sirius

01-25-2008, 10:33

OK, I'll try that. We have some festivals and such around this small town. That's the best place to find crowds. Otherwise, to find people, I generally have to cross the street and walk right up to them, not the most conducive for candid photos...

...unless you are using an M8.

Ha, I wish! though I feel plenty lucky to be shooting with my vintage german cameras. I dream about the ease of digital and sometimes mull an RD-1 over...

...Then every Leicaphile will ask you how you like it.

If only Leicaphiles tended to be young ladies I'm sure sales would improve. Who would care about IR casts then? ;)

pmu

01-25-2008, 10:34

FTo me the most effective tool for doing a good story was to understand what was in front of you. On those long essay stories, I was never any good for the first few days.

This is so true... I need always time to tune up into the moment...in the atmosphere...only after that I can came up with a good story. I did a story of reindeer round-up (http://strap-photos.com/photosets/poroerotus/index.htm) last winter. It was a one day event and I was totally and utterly lost for many hours, but in the end of the day I was very happy, I'm still very pleased with the result... I needed the time to just "feel" the event. Same goes with street photography...it always takes time to get into the mood before those photos just appear in front of your eyes. That happens usually right before you get the feeling "this is hopeless".

Florian1234

01-27-2008, 09:53

Hello,

what I often wonder about is: What equipment do you or Ed Kashi use to produce those photo essays? So basically what camera and other stuff?

Thanks in advance.

Bill Pierce

01-28-2008, 05:33

Hello,

what I often wonder about is: What equipment do you or Ed Kashi use to produce those photo essays? So basically what camera and other stuff?

Thanks in advance.

For me, it's always been Leicas and Canons. I used Canon early in the "non-auto" days because it focused (remember when you had to focus) in the same direction as Leica; Nikon focused in the opposite direction. I wanted to get to the point where I didn't have to think much about the controls.

The real point was to use small cameras and not have to carry too much equipment. Sometimes a local photographer would ask to assist me when I was traveling, and they were always disappointed in how little equipment I used.

sirius

01-28-2008, 05:53

The photographer I work with at my University has that giant prefessional Nikon with the biggest and best zoom lenses. He keeps threatening to take a little point and shoot to all the "grip and grin" photoshoots he has to do for parties and events. He says the quality is just fine for what they do with the photos (mostly put them on the website)!

I remember reading about David Alan Harvey being in a photographers scrumb and getting no respect from the others because all he had was one or two little Leicas. I'll see if I can find the quote...here it is, from his blog:

'i have posted somewhere before that i am often taken as an "amateur" by professionals because i do not "work or look like a professional"...when i was covering the Pope when he visited Castro in Cuba, the dozens "super pros" covering this event, with all their vests and long lenses and scarves, would not even talk to me because i appeared to be some kind of "amateur" with just one camera and no "stuff"!!'

It sure seems like photojournalists are all using digital now. Perhaps for ease of workflow. I wonder if the aesthetic is changing: that smooth grainlessness of digital seems to be everywhere in magazines.

Bill Pierce

01-28-2008, 13:15

Once, in China, when our government was doing our first normalization talks, I was at one of the official banquets, with a Leica, and was asked what I did. I was laughed at by my hosts who refused my notion that I was a professional. The next day I brought a few motorized SLRs and word quickly spread that I probably was a professional.

sirius

01-28-2008, 13:17

It's funny how perception is so important sometimes. I imagine that there are even times when a photo-vest is necessary. It sounds like you have had many adventures.

;)

Dogman

01-28-2008, 16:03

"...I used Canon early in the "non-auto" days because it focused (remember when you had to focus) in the same direction as Leica; Nikon focused in the opposite direction. I wanted to get to the point where I didn't have to think much about the controls."

I bought my first Leica when I was working as a PJ. Unfortunately, I was using Nikons and I simply could not get used to the difference in focusing direction between the two cameras. I ended up selling the Leica outfit. Years later, I bought another Leica and, this time, I made friends with the camera. I guess it was easier because I had previously switched to Canon SLRs.

rogue_designer

01-28-2008, 16:55

I used Canon early in the "non-auto" days because it focused (remember when you had to focus) in the same direction as Leica; Nikon focused in the opposite direction.

For years I couldn't figure out what was bothering me about my Nikon SLRs...

I had come from Canon bodies for 35mm work - and eventually went back to them.

I knew *something* was off... but I couldn't really place what. That's so basic.

Thanks Bill. Mystery Solved.

Interesting insights too, about the timing of photographs, and the process of developing a story. Coming from a studio and architecture background, I have little experience with PJ and documentary process - this is fascinating.

sirius

01-29-2008, 21:57

Bill Pierce

01-31-2008, 07:19

Hi Bill,

Speaking of events where there are a lot of cameras, have a look at this critical look at the photography being done for the presidential primaries. The author is also a very talented photographer as well. I like what he has to say and it is an interesting perspective on a lot of the photography that is being done now with the dominance of DSLRs and zooms.

http://2point8.whileseated.org/2008/01/29/why-press-photography-of-the-presidential-campaign-lacks-as-a-list/

cheers

The dominance of DSLRs and zooms pretty much extends to most news coverage. You can use anything you want on a long term story, but the bag with 2 bodies, 2 zooms and some other stuff can pretty much get you through most work days. Long hours, no sleep and being on the road for extended times make it a pretty good choice for campaign coverage. Just add a long lens.

As far as everybody getting in the pit and shooting the same shot...

There are usually two pits or stands, the local stand and the stand for the folks traveling with the candidate. Getting on that stand is a big deal for some folks, and they are a little reluctant to move or take risks. And their publication may not want the different shot. They may want the shot that everybody else has, but with their photographer's credit line.

No question that this lessens the quality of the coverage, but it's understandable.

For those photographers doing a campaign for what seems the zillionth time, getting the necessary shot is not much of a strain and they can't wait to find that different shot. They interact in a much more relaxed way with the Secret Service and the candidate's people - and that probably gives them a certain freedom of movement, e.t.c.. I'm particularly fond of Arthur Grace's book, "Choose Me." Arthur covered the presidential campaigns for Newsweek with only a twin lens Rollei. Needless to say, it made for some very different pictures from the standard pictures of the standard set ups and photo ops, and that was what Newsweek wanted. It was this assignment that led to the book, the best I have seen on presidential campaigning.

sirius

02-11-2008, 12:49

Hi Again Bill,

It sounds like a lot of the trick to covering events is figuring out where you're going to stand, and, from what you said, guarding your spot... I photographed an event last September with a professional there. Everytime I would see something unfolding and would think about where would be a good vantage point, I'd look over, and there he was!

Do you have any tips about finding vantage points? I've heard about a wedding photographer that slings a small portable ladder over his shoulder just to give him those few feet over the heads if he needed it.

cheers

Chuck Albertson

02-12-2008, 09:22

For those photographers doing a campaign for what seems the zillionth time, getting the necessary shot is not much of a strain and they can't wait to find that different shot. They interact in a much more relaxed way with the Secret Service and the candidate's people - and that probably gives them a certain freedom of movement, e.t.c.. I'm particularly fond of Arthur Grace's book, "Choose Me." Arthur covered the presidential campaigns for Newsweek with only a twin lens Rollei. Needless to say, it made for some very different pictures from the standard pictures of the standard set ups and photo ops, and that was what Newsweek wanted. It was this assignment that led to the book, the best I have seen on presidential campaigning.

Also take a look at Christopher Morris' My America, on the 2004 Bush campaign, which he covered for Time. It's a collection of definitely-off-the-menu shots, and presents a much darker take on the White House road show than you usually find in the weeklies. I think he's covering McCain's campaign this week.

furcafe

02-12-2008, 10:21

I think it has a lot do w/Bill's point that "the most effective tool for doing a good story was to understand what was in front of you." It doesn't matter whether you're doing PJ, weddings, or nightlife/party shots, the bottom line is that you need to know both your subject(s) (the old beat cop mantra: you have to know people, the things they do, & when they do them) & the environment(s) you're shooting in.

For example, I shoot bands & other performers often enough @ the same local clubs that I have a pretty good idea of vantage points & lighting issues. Since I'm short, I would love to be able to bring a ladder like the wedding photographer, but I'd get my ass kicked, so normally I have to work hard to get in front (or as close as possible) & shoot from down low. I'm confident that I could use the same approach if I were to shoot similar bands/performers in similar venues in NYC or elsewhere. I think the bigger problem is that any decent photographer will figure out the same choice vantage points, especially in a highly controlled environment like a political speech, & you have to figure out a way to award, divide, or share the spoils among the competing photogs.

Hi Again Bill,

It sounds like a lot of the trick to covering events is figuring out where you're going to stand, and, from what you said, guarding your spot... I photographed an event last September with a professional there. Everytime I would see something unfolding and would think about where would be a good vantage point, I'd look over, and there he was!

Do you have any tips about finding vantage points? I've heard about a wedding photographer that slings a small portable ladder over his shoulder just to give him those few feet over the heads if he needed it.

cheers

Bill Pierce

02-12-2008, 10:43

Hi Again Bill,

Do you have any tips about finding vantage points? I've heard about a wedding photographer that slings a small portable ladder over his shoulder just to give him those few feet over the heads if he needed it.

cheers

Believe it or not, I'm sitting at my computer and five feet away from a small, folding stepladder that has gone everywhere with me. When I was covering the Presidential campaigns and other media events, I used to ocassionally buy a full sized stepladder at the local hardware store, shoot the press conference or whatever from it and then, as the event wound down, rent it out to other photographers to make my cost back. That way I didn't feel so bad about leaving it behind.

Bill

sirius

02-12-2008, 11:24

Ha ha! Well, I better get a ladder.

shutterflower

02-12-2008, 11:46

First, apologies for the late reply. I've been on the road and computer time is much reduced.

As to the burst technique in Ed Kashi's Iraq essay, I think that is pretty much something he found he could do on the web. I would suspect that he did not shoot in prolonged bursts when the stories were only going to print. One often shoots a number of frames to get to that "one" image. But you are usually aware when you've got it. If you are a coward, like me, you take one more just in case, and you certainly keep the camera up to your eye until the action is over, "just in case." But in conventional media you are usually looking for that one frame that is better than all the others. And that effects the way you shoot.

As to other techniques... To me the most effective tool for doing a good story was to understand what was in front of you. On those long essay stories, I was never any good for the first few days. There some stories you are never going to understand fully taking place in cultures you will never fully understand. But I was never able to look through the viewfinder and say, "That's it." until I had some modest understanding of the subject.

This is one very valuable insight here. I tend to reflect this thinking in my own work. When I'm shooting action, at least, or semi-candid portraiture, I shoot a far larger number of frames than I might otherwise. I go through the pile to find the shot that captures the subject's facial expressions and body language in the most ideal way. You can't always be quick enough with the camera to be on top of the moment as it happens, so shooting a burst around it is good insurance. When shooting with crappy rental lenses, I shoot in bursts just so I can be sure to find a few that are actually in focus...

understanding the situation is as important as knowing how to use the camera.

sirius

02-14-2008, 03:23

Someone posted this link to the Cartier-Bresson documentary, the Impassioned Eye, here on RFF. I've always been a great fan of his work for the moments he captures, the humanistic story, and the wonderful sense of form. But, I didn't realize that he had such a nose for news! It's a lovely documentary and tribute to the man. I liked seeing and hearing from all the other famous photographers and the beautiful music throughout. Anyway, it's probably some awful violation of copyright, but I went onto eBay and bought a copy a few minutes ago...so at least someone is making something...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzgLQw3oBOI&feature=related

cheers

sirius

02-14-2008, 03:33

Back to my first post in this discussion thread...in the documentary someone talks about his portraits and how they look like they were snapped just after the moment someone said something. It's interesting, these in between moments. So many of my favorite photos a la Magnum and such have the feeling of being in between as well. I remember in art history class how people talked about Michealangelo's sculptures having the feeling of the moment before the figure will spring into action, there's a tension in it.

I wonder why these discarded moments are so revealing?

Bill Pierce

02-14-2008, 15:47

I wonder why these discarded moments are so revealing?

Perhaps it is because they ask a question. What just happened? What is going to happen?

For a long time critics and editors seemed to choose pictures that told you something. Pictures had a message. Especially in journalism. Pictures were supposed to answer questions, not ask them. Sometimes that's necessary. But, unfortunately, I always liked pictures that asked a question.

sirius

02-14-2008, 17:56

Great response, thank-you for the insight.

marke

02-22-2008, 18:04

I always liked pictures that asked a question.

Me too. When a question is answered, whether in word or picture, the story is done, and all has been told. But a picture that asks a question holds the door open for many possibilities.

sirius

03-19-2008, 12:01

Hi Bill,

I thought I would share a couple of videos I found on David Alan Harvey. I like that they show his way of working and apply to this topic. I find it interesting how he gets right in the middle and in front of people. He also takes a lot more photos that I always imagined these decisive moment photographers would take...

"Cuba" from the digital journalist
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue9910/video/CubaHi.ram

National Geo documentary
http://davidalanharvey.com/sources/frontsite/display_file.php?file=slideshow/1/David%20Alan%20Harvey%20National%20Geographic.mp4

They are big files and might take a while to load.

cheers

sirius

05-13-2008, 15:56

Hi Bill,

How do you develop a story? (Research, relationship, personal meaning to the photographer?)

I imagine that each approach is different, but do you take time to get to know people before bringing the camera out, or do you have it out and obvious in case something comes up? One of the things I like most about photographers in the famous photo magazines is the implications of rapport they have with their documentary subjects. They are either very brash with their camera (Capa's "not close enough") or they must have established some bond of trust.

I guess I'm partly asking, how do you communicate that you are not there to do harm...that you want to show respect with your photography?

Another thought about this, is there always a perspective in how you develop a story? It seems that the great photographers are also great autuers in their story-telling ability. They may tell an important story, but they also always communicate a perspective, an opinion, a personal point of view...

sirius

07-23-2008, 08:04

Dear Bill and Others,

I guess my last post was rather an impossibly broad question to answer. No brain downloads, hey? ;)

A photographer friend sent me this wonderful link. I love what broadband is doing now for photojournalism. They combine stills, video interviews, sound-tracks, voice-overs, information graphics, interface and web design. I'm a graphics designer and aspiring photographer/story-teller, so something like this appeals to a lot of my interests at one time.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/07/20/business/20debt-trap.html?scp=1&sq=debt&st=m

I know that times are hard for finding work as a photojournalist: there are so many now, high quality cameras are affordable, and print commissions and stock agencies are drying-up. Do you think multimedia like this is a future revenue model for photojournalists?

cheers

Bill Pierce

07-23-2008, 10:11

Dear Bill and Others,

I guess my last post was rather an impossibly broad question to answer. No brain downloads, hey? ;)

I know that times are hard for finding work as a photojournalist: there are so many now, high quality cameras are affordable, and print commissions and stock agencies are drying-up. Do you think multimedia like this is a future revenue model for photojournalists?

cheers

Newspapers and news magazines are drying up. Already one newspaper in this country has stopped its print version and only appears online. I suspect that number will increase along with the number of news sites that are exclusively web based. I see the photographers from the New York Times, Magnum e.t.c. making a real effort to learn effective ways of presenting pictures and, more important, picture stories on the web.

There was a period when TV experimented with news stories from stills, but the producers were deeply troubled that the pictures didn't wiggle and zoomed and panned the stills so much that they were illegible. We seemed to have grown a little more sophisticated on the web.

To answer your question - I don't think the multimedia internet is a future revenue model for photojournalists; I think it's the future of photojournalism. (The revenue model will be the same old - underpay them.)

A long time ago, an old friend and co worker, Dirck Halstead, turned his website into a forum on digital journalism. That's not just shooting with digital cameras; it's distributing digitally over the internet. The latter is really the more important issue. From the beginning a bunch of us contributed, all friends and co workers, and it has grown. Log onto http://www.digitaljournalist.org. It often has articles that address your question, especially in Dirck's editorials. (And, if you are interested in real world photojournalism, it's a bottomless pit of goodies thanks to the archives.)

Bill

nksyoon

07-23-2008, 14:05

tmfabian

07-23-2008, 14:33

Here are 2 interesting reads about the future of photojournalism, from Vincent Laforet (freelance, formerly NY Times) and Jean-Francois Leroy of Visa Pour l'Image.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2014

http://aphotoeditor.com/2008/06/11/can-visa-pour-l%E2%80%99image-remain-relevant/

Stanley Greene can't get 10k euros funding for a project while top football players earn more than 25k euros per week?

I'm not a fan of Laforet, I've even met him once, but he does hit the nail on the head.
The future of photojournalism doesn't lie in the old tried and true work for paper to paper to magazine...I certainly don't earn my living that way.
I go out every day and hit up companies, agencies, churches, and non-profit groups and pitch documenting their employees/volutneers work as well as their outcomes in order to use the stories in their semianual and anual reports.
Banks and investors like to see where their money is going, and providing documentary photography services to these groups banks in turn provide them with more money after seeing the hard work and outcomes of their investment/donation monies.

The world of photojournalism is changing quickly and one thing I can say at least is that it's got nothing to do with needing a digital camera (I still shoot a TON of film on these jobs) Like laforet stated in his article...it has everything to do with the fact that the general public has become sooo accustomed to getting their news for free on the internet and with the countless addons you can get for browsers to block adverts, advertising revenue is also down....thus impacting payment for the old timer photographers expecting the same old business model to take care of them (why pay a photojournalist to cover a story when thousands of people with cameraphones are willing to simply submit those images to the media for free)

Welsh_Italian

07-28-2008, 10:24

Me too. When a question is answered, whether in word or picture, the story is done, and all has been told. But a picture that asks a question holds the door open for many possibilities.<br />
<br />

Apologies for coming late to this thread.

I was chatting a few years ago with a friend of mine who makes movies and we got onto what movies had the biggest impact and interested us the most. We decided that these were the movies that left questions unanswered or hid them very well within the story by presenting different contexts to the viewer (in other words, the context(s) within a movie were not straightforward). For example, The Usual Suspects (spoiler alert!) seems to be about a weasel-like man who was out of his depth and caught up with some very nasty people indeed. The truth was (when the detective started putting the fake story together) was that the weasel was actually the nastiest criminal of all. A movie like that can leave you wondering how you were fooled which might explain the appeal of magic tricks. Other movies we liked left us both a bit confused with a lack of a good ending. Movies that telegraphed the plot and tied everything up nicely at the end were the most unsatisfying of all.

And I guess that my favourite photographs are like that: their context is not obvious and it takes a bit of effort from the viewer to work one out for themselves. I can see this in a lot of work by Bresson and Winogrand where the people in the pictures seem disjointed - it makes me wonder what is going on because when I first look at a picture, I just don't entirely get the story. From that comes an impact far greater than any picture of a sunset.

The best pictures, for me, are those that present enough of the context for the viewer to infer a certain amount of information, but that also present things that both refuse to expand to a full understanding, and also challenge the context I initially thought of. From a psychological point of view, humans are good pattern matchers and will try to make sense of their perceptions - being able to confound this can help make a photograph have impact.

And the very best photographers also have beautiful composition etc which makes them works of art.