"This is ART, not journalism!" he says (photo)

It's a nice shot. It's not an award winner, sure. Being humble to the point that you wont admit when you've got something decent is just fooling yourself. Enjoy your successes.

I take a lot of crud too. This job entails a lot of flat drudgery that we've got to do. Its a good feeling when you come away from something with an interesting photo. It's not a whole lot of fun when your editor doesn't run it and can't give you a real solid reason for it. He offers you, instead, "I really dont understand photojournalism".

So I'm suppose to believe that my photo has no journalistic entegriety because my editor (who admits he doesnt understand what I'm doing) says it doesnt? I dont buy that.

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

ib1yysguy said:

Anyway (and this is an honest question beacuse I'm sure my editor
sees things the same way you do) - Why does a photograph have to be
composed to resemble something you would have seen if you were just
standing around as an observer?

Click to expand...

Humans relate to how humans see.

Kids running down a track is boring to me, unless that's my kid running down the track. It's also boring unless I'm involved, which in this case you need to read my previous post regarding how to frame the shot in the perspective of the coach.

Tilting the camera and cutting off their heads doesn't spice things up. It's actually moronic unless you have a purpose behind it other than to "spice things up." Read my post about the midget who cut peoples heads off. Then you'll understand why it worked for him.

ib1yysguy said:

Why is it some how a faux pas to get down to "dog" level and make
something interesting out of a potentially dull situation?

Click to expand...

Yup. You're definately a kid. Using words you don't know how to use (faux pas.)

Anyway -- read my earlier post about why the picture of the dog was shot with corrective perspective.

If you wonder why it's an interesting shot, just listen to your feelings, considering your ego doesn't get in the way, when you look at the photograph. It makes me happy. Why? I like petting dogs. Here boy!

as a journalist, you can't "alter" the scene by you being there. If you get a photo where your reflected in the mirror, you can't run it. Your not suppose to be there. Your documenting the scene for what it is.

Holding a stopwatch in front of the camera and pretending like I'm timing them isn't journalism. That truely IS art. If the coach were standing by and I put the camera near his chest and snapped a similar photo, that would be alright.

There are rules to journalism that I do understand. This is one of them. Your not there to mislead people - your there to document an event.

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

No, it isn't a nice shot. I've told you why many times. Sure, I'll say it's nice so I don't hurt your feelings. Does that make you feel better? No, of course not. I've explained numerous times and on many occations why and how it could be improved.

If you don't get it, then there is nothing I can do. This is probably the same point your editor is at: nothing he can do. At this point it's up to you. If you still don't understand, then I suggest logging off and taking a break and come back to it later.

ib1yysguy said:

It's a nice shot. It's not an award winner, sure. Being humble to
the point that you wont admit when you've got something decent is
just fooling yourself. Enjoy your successes.

I take a lot of crud too. This job entails a lot of flat drudgery
that we've got to do. Its a good feeling when you come away from
something with an interesting photo. It's not a whole lot of fun
when your editor doesn't run it and can't give you a real solid
reason for it. He offers you, instead, "I really dont understand
photojournalism".

So I'm suppose to believe that my photo has no journalistic
entegriety because my editor (who admits he doesnt understand what
I'm doing) says it doesnt? I dont buy that.

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

Click to expand...

how did this thread suddenly turn into an argument between you and me?

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

Your arm or his arm -- doesn't matter -- my theory is still sound.

If you don't mind lying to your editor, say it's the couch's arm.

If you don't like lying, you would need to ask the couch's permissions, or try a different perspective all together.

Once again you have missed the entire point.

ib1yysguy said:

as a journalist, you can't "alter" the scene by you being there. If
you get a photo where your reflected in the mirror, you can't run
it. Your not suppose to be there. Your documenting the scene for
what it is.

Holding a stopwatch in front of the camera and pretending like I'm
timing them isn't journalism. That truely IS art. If the coach were
standing by and I put the camera near his chest and snapped a
similar photo, that would be alright.

There are rules to journalism that I do understand. This is one of
them. Your not there to mislead people - your there to document an
event.

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

Click to expand...

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

I'm afraid you're the only one arguing in this thread. Myself and others are more than happy to help out if we can.

I've thoroughly explained ideas, thoughts, pictures and provided reference material. I think I've done a decent job at keeping my demeanour while trying to handle your arrogance. I'm a bit harsh, but sometimes kids need a good shock or jolt to understand and snap out of their little world where only they matter.

Do you have AIM? I'm willing to chat with you.

ib1yysguy said:

how did this thread suddenly turn into an argument between you and me?

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

Click to expand...

Douglas Hanks said:

Your arm or his arm -- doesn't matter -- my theory is still sound.

If you don't mind lying to your editor, say it's the couch's arm.

If you don't like lying, you would need to ask the couch's
permissions, or try a different perspective all together.

Once again you have missed the entire point.

Click to expand...

kind of sounds like your kinda grasping at straws here bud...

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

ok. Regardless of how old you think I am, the point is moot. It's pretty obvious were coming form differnet ends of the table.

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

Actually I've built an entire foundation to which I stand firmly. You're just having trouble understanding because you're stuck in minor details.

You can't see the forest because of the tree.

The shot I described is firmly based on perspective, composure, framing, and tells a great story. All you have done is pose an irrelevant technical question which could be solved numerous ways.

ib1yysguy said:

Douglas Hanks said:

Your arm or his arm -- doesn't matter -- my theory is still sound.

If you don't mind lying to your editor, say it's the couch's arm.

If you don't like lying, you would need to ask the couch's
permissions, or try a different perspective all together.

Once again you have missed the entire point.

Click to expand...

kind of sounds like your kinda grasping at straws here bud...

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

Click to expand...

ib1yysguy said:

he told me that he really doesn't know. He doesn't understand
photojournalism. He's going to talk to some people who do know and
see what they have to say. Im going to do the same.

My question to him was, "Would a shot of this kid's face have told
you that they're going to have a track meet next week any more
than this one?" he changed the subject without really
satisfactorally answering my querry. Of course it wouldn't. A shot
of a kid running, like the kind people see every day, is not only
boaring but who's going to want to look at it? They sent me to get
an intersting stand alone feature photo to take up room that the
reporting staff couldn't fill. I did that. So what is the problem?

Click to expand...

I suspect that you don't really want an answer to the question, "So what is the problem?", but I'm going to give my opinion anyway. You are welcome to ignore it if you like.

It's been many a year, but I once was in photojournalism. I agree with the editor. If you are going to do this track shot with a photo-art emphasis, I can see two other ways of doing it. If you wanted to do "flying feet", then what we should see is just flying feet and track, and not a flock of bystanders somewhat blurrily standing by. This puts me in mind of the dictum Evon Streetman told me, which is that the photographer is responsible for everything in the frame. What part of the story of "track meet coming up" do blurry bystanders tell? My approach to the canted angle on the track would have been to put the camera on my trusty monopod and hoist it up such that I got the runner breaking the converging lines of the track. That way, I would get the art (composition with diagonal converging lines of track) and the journalism (human drama showing whatever emotion happened to be on the runner's face).

I remember sitting in on a graduate fine arts seminar being given by Jerry N. Uelsmann. Professor Uelsmann was expounding upon how the proletarian demands of photojournalsim drained the soul out of the photographic art. Needless to say, it was at that moment that my pager rang out with the voice of one of our easily excitable assistant editors telling me that I was needed to cover an assignment immediately .

Uelsmann had a bit of a point. Photojournalism does put constraints on what is considered acceptable, and in some ways this is inhibiting and should be challenged when possible. But like poets working within the strictures of the sonnet, photojournalists can sometimes find elegant solutions which transcend these stifling confines and deliver real art. In taking his stance, I think Uelsmann did an injustice to people like Margaret Bourke-White, Walker Evans, and W. Eugene Smith.

I appreciate that you are trying to break out of the early-Weegee mold of grip-and-grin photojournalism. But I think that you might take your editor as a gauge as to how well you succeed in trying to merge art and photojournalism. He may not be able to express cogently why what you offer doesn't fit the bill, but his demurral should spur you to thinking of ways to change your approach so that both your need for artistic expression and his need for providing photos meeting the strictures of journalistic practice are met.

Wesley

"Jeremy Johnson of St. Francis High begins the first leg of the 2003 "Run for the Rebar" at Samuels Field Saturday morning."

That's the story the photo needs to tell. You don't have the kid's head in the shot. It looks like a mistake when viewed in a who-what-where-when-why context, which is why your editor nixed it. It's too abstract.

There's no rule that says you can't shoot this stuff for your own enjoyment or portfolio. Just give your editor what he wants.

Dave
---

ib1yysguy said:

What:its obviously a track event of some kind, just makes you want
to learn more

Click to expand...

ib1yysguy said:

When: Daytime, obvious enough. Cutline specifies the details.
Nobody really cares when. It's a feature shot
Where: On a track. No question. Yup. Definately a track. Look like
young kids to, eh? Probably high school.
Why: Cutline again specifies the specifics.
How?: N/A really.

Now tell me how the shot that I chose not to give them would answer
these any better? Would it do so by such an extent to justify
sacrificing good photography to do it? I cant see how. Maybe you
can enlighten me.

Sorry if I seem hostile. I really just posted this on the forum to
give me an idea what my editor might say to me next time I try to
make my case to him. It's good practice. Gives me a chance to think
ahead.

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

Click to expand...

I can't say I entirely dissagree with your argument. You raise some good points.

I've spent the last half an hour arguing with a guy that doesn't understand the idea of journalism. In fact, he told me to set up a shot an lie about it. Heh. Anyway, like I said in my original post, he very well could be right.

Your right, blurry bystanders dont say much. Come to think of it, a closeup of just the feet would probably have run.
--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

I second what Dave just said. I also want to emphasis that you need to learn about your audience: it isn't comprised of a population of artists. Moms and dads read it. Teachers read it. John Smith riding the bus to work reads it.

What would they say when they seen the photo?

Mom and dad: where the hell is his face? I can't show this off

Teachers: Is that Eric running? Who took this shot?

John: stupid newspaper can't even tell a story.

Important note: do what you're hired to do, not what you want to do. It's a part of maturing.

Dave Harpe said:

That's the story the photo needs to tell. You don't have the kid's
head in the shot. It looks like a mistake when viewed in a
who-what-where-when-why context, which is why your editor nixed it.
It's too abstract.

There's no rule that says you can't shoot this stuff for your own
enjoyment or portfolio. Just give your editor what he wants.

Dave
---

Dave Harpe said:

What:its obviously a track event of some kind, just makes you want
to learn more

Click to expand...

Dave Harpe said:

When: Daytime, obvious enough. Cutline specifies the details.
Nobody really cares when. It's a feature shot
Where: On a track. No question. Yup. Definately a track. Look like
young kids to, eh? Probably high school.
Why: Cutline again specifies the specifics.
How?: N/A really.

Now tell me how the shot that I chose not to give them would answer
these any better? Would it do so by such an extent to justify
sacrificing good photography to do it? I cant see how. Maybe you
can enlighten me.

Sorry if I seem hostile. I really just posted this on the forum to
give me an idea what my editor might say to me next time I try to
make my case to him. It's good practice. Gives me a chance to think
ahead.

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

ib1yysguy said:

I've spent the last half an hour arguing with a guy that doesn't
understand the idea of journalism. In fact, he told me to set up a
shot an lie about it. Heh. Anyway, like I said in my original post,
he very well could be right.

Click to expand...

I didn't tell you to do anything. I gave you options.

Personally I would have used my own hand olding the time piece, and if it was ever an issue, I would claim it was the couch's hand. But this is only a technical aspect that doesn't distract from the entire artwork I described earlier.

Frankly breaking the rules is part of the game -- you mentioned you weren't allowed to alter the frame -- in my example I was contributing to the frame, not altering it.

Above all else you could have easily used the couch's hand, or even a friend's.

Is it really this tough for you? What can I do to help?

ib1yysguy said:

the shot was to run as a stand-alone photo. No story to accompany it.

Why doesn't this do the job of telling the story? I believe it does.

Click to expand...

It does indeed tell a story, but not the story the editor wants. The parents want to see the faces of their kids, so they can say: "Oh, look, you are in the newspaper", so they can cut out the picture and show it to the kid's grandparents, so the neighbours can see the little wonderboy next door etc.

And who buys this newspaper? The parents.

It's not at all a bad picture. As photography it is much better than 95% of the pictures in our newpapers. Even then it is the wrong picture in the wrong place.

Now that you understand your audience, why can't you put 1 + 1 together?

Are you still hung up on your photo and how great it is?

Give the parents and editor what they want. It's your job.

If you're "too good" for the job, then quit it and be another starving artist.

Leif Olstrup said:

ib1yysguy said:

the shot was to run as a stand-alone photo. No story to accompany it.

Why doesn't this do the job of telling the story? I believe it does.

Click to expand...

It does indeed tell a story, but not the story the editor wants.
The parents want to see the faces of their kids, so they can say:
"Oh, look, you are in the newspaper", so they can cut out the
picture and show it to the kid's grandparents, so the neighbours
can see the little wonderboy next door etc.

And who buys this newspaper? The parents.

It's not at all a bad picture. As photography it is much better
than 95% of the pictures in our newpapers. Even then it is the
wrong picture in the wrong place.

Click to expand...

I'm starting to agree with some of you.

It's a sad fact that all the high ideals we hold about journalism have to take a back seat to the fact that newspapers are just another business - like any other. What sells is important, unfortunately.

It's a shame that good photography on its own doesnt sell newspapers.
--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.