Well what with all the noise about ethics in photojournalism going around lately, Sports Shooter has decided to start a column about photojournalism ethics. The first column is aptly titled: Gray Matters: What is real?
Go read it, look like it could be an interesting feature.
If you hadn’t heard about Allan Detrich, and his editing of a photo to do with the Bluffton Baseball tragedy, then you obviously haven’t been reading your photography news for the last few days.
This isn’t the first time this sort of thing has been found, and it certainly won’t be the last, photo shopping becoming something of a second nature to many of us. Not being a photo journalist, I can clone and heal to my hearts content, the final image’s look being the only concern. The life of the photo journalist isn’t so easy however; unlike their literary counterparts (who seem to be able to get away with a hell of a lot of massaging of the truth), the photo journalist is still held to a very high ideal. It makes sense in a way, people usually realise that what they read should be taken with a grain of salt; however the general perception is still that a “photo doesn’t lie”.
The fact that these photo journalists that are caught get fired, may seem to be a bit harsh. The edits have almost always been minor cosmetic changes, and it would be easy to say that there was no harm in them. Still, if you allowed some editing of photos, the huge grey area that would result would rapidly push photo journalism into an arena about as factually true as the opinions column on the last page of a cheap tabloid.
…the more they stay the same.
…created an army of photographers who run rampant over the globe, photographing objects of all sorts, sizes and shapes, under almost every condition, without ever pausing to ask themselves, is this or that artistic? …They spy a view, it seems to please, the camera is focused, the shot taken! There is no pause, why should there be? For art may err but nature cannot miss, says the poet, and they listen to the dictum. To them, composition, light, shade, form and texture are so many catch phrases…
So said E. E. Cohen in 1893. What was he complaining about? Dry plate photography, the new process that was rapidly replacing wet plate colloidal photography. In fact throughout the history of photography all new technologies and ideas were met with resistance from the currently established photographers of the day. It makes sense, since they have spent many years becoming an expert in their field, and when the new paradigm comes along their expertise is suddenly diminished in usefulness; they have to learn things anew. It happened then, wet plate vs dry plate, and now digital vs film; and even tradition stock vs micro stock.
Yes, micro stock, that newcomer to the block who has caused more anger and resentment amongst the old stock photographers than any other change. No other subject has generated more apocalyptic blog posts in the photographic community, with constant reports of falling revenues and worse. Mentioning you sell at a micro stock site is likely to get you a mountain of abuse hurled in your direction; the smaller macro stock agencies often not allowing anyone to join if they have been involved in micro stock.
Is this a good idea? They think it is, the general justification being the protection of their customers, just in case that micro stock supplier decided to provide the same image to both a micro stock site, and them. Sounds like a valid reason, doesn’t it?
Except Getty has bought out iStockphoto.com; and what the anti micro stock people won’t tell you, or perhaps don’t even know about, is that iStock exclusive photographers of diamond level (and possibly lower) now have the option to send their best photos to Getty’s Photodisc RF collection. Now this isn’t exactly the big time yet, still no RM managed stuff for the iStock photographers, but it is a first step; and it is clear that Getty intends to move the best photographers up into the much more expensive traditional stock business.
Now if you are new RM agency, you have two choices. Get people of all levels and ability, or restrict yourself to the good experienced stock photographers. Since you are selling your images at a much higher price, I seriously doubt you want to be getting amateurs in, so that really rules out the first option. Yet with the second option, it is going to be increasingly common to find the up and coming stock photographers to already be in micro stock. So if you bar them from joining your stock agency, they will go somewhere else.
The world of stock photography is changing, and no amount of complaining will change that. Like almost everything else in this modern world, quality goes out the door and is replaced by quantity, availability and cost effectiveness. People still manage to make a living of making quality, but there are less of them; the masses purchase what is cheap and available. So stop complaining about micro stock, and realise to make money in it, you will need to produce a ton of above average shots. To be able to make a living in the traditional stock business however, you will need to produce amazing work that stands out amongst the crowd.
There is something about hobbies that makes so many people in this world insist on taking up polarised positions. Product A is better than product B, no questions, no exceptions! I’m sure internet forums increase this ten fold. The resulting multi page long arguments, filled with baseless assumptions and ridiculous conclusions, being repeated so often that it makes you want to bash your head against your monitor until the pain stops one way or another.
Now a year or so back, I began my hobby of photography with the purchase of a digital SLR. I am very happy with my choice, and while I’m sure there are a thousand arguments for choosing a different route, I wouldn’t choose differently if given another chance. It was and is a great learning tool, with rapid feedback and very good quality images. Yet I somehow don’t feel this need to proclaim my choice to be the most superior choice available to all.
It seems that as film rapidly retreats from the market, becoming harder and harder to get; the film connoisseurs feel an increasing need make even more ridiculous claims about why film is best. The other day I was reading a post where someone claimed that 35mm film was equivalent to at least 22 mega pixels. I don’t know what film he used, because I don’t think a 19×13 inch enlargement (that is +-22mp at 300 dpi in digital terms) of 35mm film looks even remotely as detailed as one from a 12mp digital camera. Grain is not detail!
However, while grain may not be detail; the look of film, especially B&W films, is something that can be truly appreciated; even when shooting 35mm. The resolution of large format cannot be beaten by any easily affordable digital solution with the exception of stitching digital images; something that while able to producing stunning large images, is still severely limited.
Yet all of this is meaningless. I love photography, all of it. The film ribbon on the side bar of this blog is there to say that film is not dead, there will always be some of us who want to use it. Right now my tiny budget has limited me to a DSLR and an old Kiev 4 35mm rangefinder. I want to build my own large format camera, get a better DSLR, perhaps find an old Kiev 60 on ebay; Maybe even one day own a Leica M3. I am not a digital photographer, or a film photographer; I am just a photographer.
Well it has been over a year since I last mentioned this little camera of mine. Back then I promised to take the front shutter mechanism out and attempt to fix it, and have been putting it off ever since.
Well last night I finally decided to do it, and thankfully the fix turned out to be quite easy, without me needed to dismantle the shutter assembly completely. All I had was a jewel screwdriver, a pair of long nose pliers, and a plastic bottle lid to keep the screws in. In addition I used some eclipse cleaning liquid to clean the inner parts of the lens while I had it open. A more complete dismantling of the shutter would probably require a bit more equipment, and a lot more time. All in all, the operation took me 2 hours, though it shouldn’t take me longer than 20 minutes now that I know what to do.
Read the rest of this entry »
