How is digital changing photojournalism and documentary photography?

I ask this partly because I was unhappy about the discussion around

the question posed earlier by Ed Boucher. I think he got the

question a little wrong, but some of the respondents were smart and

experienced enough to set that right and didn't. Of course, I didn't

help much either by my cryptic comment about Vietnam, so I'd like to

set that straight. Ed's focus on "artistic" value was a bit

irrelevant. I think the real issues around the picture described

were incongruity and irony. <br>    The pictures we are

seeing today in papers, on the web and elsewhere are unlike anything

being done before because they are digital. They seem to have

unlimited depth of focus, no grain, no motion blur, a kind of

crystaline clarity. Frame the shot, the AF/AE kicks in,

click.<br>    Here's another example:  a picture

recently in the news of a checkpoint with U.S. soldiers holding their

weapons at the ready while a whole family passes by on a motorcycle,

turbaned driver, hooded wife, and kids. The picture has a crisp,

tactile quality. You are there, but not there. You may find

examples from the past that are similar, but not in the quantity we

see now. Are we really better informed by the clarity of these

images, or are we just more able to see the details of a terrible

situation while maintaining a safe distance? Do the photographers

making these pictures have a sense of this incongruity, or are they a

generation removed from considering it? I'm not looking to start an

argument about digital vs film; I'm just wondering where we are going.

>The pictures we are seeing today in papers, on the web and elsewhere are unlike anything being done before because they are digital.

 

No it's not, it's because of improved printing techniques. Loads of photographs that have appeared in print since the mid-1980s have been digital (that is, digitally scanned from film.)

I would put more emphasis on the indirect effects of digital rather

than the actual photos themselves. The way how journalism is

put together and commodified as a product as oppose to being

a service to inform in this ever speeding hyper-reality. As we

become further globalized, we will become more and more

fragmented into our own little inside groups ie people forum,

event/wedding forum, street /document forum, etc...

 

As for the crystal clarity, no movements, hugh depth of field and

the digital look (if there's such) I don't see it having any large

scale impact on journalism except perhaps people will get tired

of all these crappy images and stop looking at them for good.

 

Mike, do you shoot digital by any chance? If you do, do you shoot

them differntly than a film camera? I can't imagine it would be

so different.

digicam or film?<div></div>

Film.

film ...;)....J

Looks like a Digital shot to me. There's no grain even with huge enlargement... unless it's

a C41 film and a grain control program was applied... which makes it digital then anyway.

I think one needs to look carefully at the different genre of

journalism and documentary in consideration. Newspapers and

other dailies are deadline oriented and often print some pics

from AP, AFP or so other image banks (for international news).

Newsweek, Time and the likes are better due to due $$ and

longer deadline. National Geographic, MotherJones,

DoubleTake are still better due to indepth coverage and

documentary style oriented.

 

I was at the grocery market waiting in line and peeked at the

latest Newsweek (I believe)and to my surprise there were quite a

few B+W photos in it and one was blurred I recall.

Well, I also do find flawed images more interesting as oppose to

the all in focus, everything frame safe stertile pic whether they

are taking with digicams or the latest asph lenses at f16.

So i do somewhat understand what you're saying Mike.

Levels/contrast are off, so I just figured it was a bad scan. ;-)

<i>"The pictures we are seeing today in papers, on the web and elsewhere are unlike anything being done before because they are digital.</i>

<p>

This fast becomes a case of semantics. A shot is a shot. If it's got to be uploaded by sat-phone or sent to a wire service then it's gonna get digitzed at some point in the process anyhow. I don't think pro PJs out there have all of a sudden dropped all the hard earned tricks of the trade just because they now have a DSLR in their hand. If anything they're pushing the limits more because they're shootin more because they're not weighed down by film/changing rolls/carrying something like the F4/F5 (or more likely the Canon equivalent) which weigh a ton.

 

<i>"They seem to have unlimited depth of focus, no grain, no motion blur, a kind of crystaline clarity.</i>

,p>

I dunno what your reading but I have seen some fantastic shots as of late, especially some of the stuff from the Haiti conflict. Lots of grit, lots of blur and frankly they directly conveyed just how blippin' scary it'd be to be there shooting the stuff. Broaden your reading horizons and I think you might have a different perspective.

<p>

<i>Frame the shot, the AF/AE kicks in, click. </i>

<p>

Frankly, a very weak assumption on your part. I think you seriously underestimate what it takes to get some shots.

<p>

<i>"You may find examples from the past that are similar, but not in the quantity we see now. Are we really better informed by the clarity of these images, or are we just more able to see the details of a terrible situation while maintaining a safe distance? "</i>

<p>

So let me get this. You want less images? In many cases, yes, one can be better informed by a larger quantity of images to look at - given the constraints/agenda of the news media establishment as it exists today.

<p>

As for the 'maintaining a safe distance' issue. I find this one a bit ironic actually - here we are talking about PJs and the problems with their images while their the ones out getting shot at and then we are running on about 'safe distance'. So this begs the question - in the past, way back in days of old before images became digital did you feel you were closer to the situation? You were then at a 'less safe distance' because said images were shot on film?!

<p>

I don't think the age of the PJ has much to do with it really. They earn their stripes all the same. Only the tools have slightly changed. It's not as if the old school died off and now all the young bucks are running amok with digital technology. Many of the guys I know shooting conflict are 10 years older than me and I am in my mid thirties. I can think of several who abhore auto-focus, have superb compostion skills under fire, have shot just abou every major conflict (and a lot of smaller ones as well) in the past 10 years and shoot digital. A few of them still shoot film. Has it changed the way they shoot. No not really - digital doesn't change muscle memory, motor reflex or compostional skills. What it does do is allow you to shoot more, get the work out faster.

<p>

I could be wrong, photojournalism involves than war coverage, doesn't it?

 

the tsunami of images falling on us everyday may be a factor in the sense of perceived change.

 

when I was kid in Toronto, there were five TV stations, Hamilton CHCH, Toronto CBLT, 3 from Buffalo (Huntley/Brinkley started with 15 minute broadcasts)- now evening news shows are 30minutes with tons more commercials in that half hour. I cant remember when CFTO-TV started...afternoon newspapers which no longer exist, have to be morning papers..photos BW...I can't remember how extensive photo coverage was in the newspapers compared to today....and I read TIME...one weekly magazine.

 

now the tsunami

 

(hope I spelled that right)

Just a few quick words of response as I'm still on my first cup of coffee. I wasn't talking so much about the medium on which the image is recorded as the fact that the shooting process is more often mediated electronically whether using film or CCD. I do shoot digital and the pictures that produces are different. A lot of times they are better in some way than I would get with film cameras, but I also wonder how much of the result I can personally claim ownership to. Regarding my comments on PJ, I wasn't suggesting there should be less pictures, and the statement about keeping at a distance was meant to apply to the viewer, not the shooter. The question I posed was really meant to be open-ended. I threw out a few ideas that occurred to me at the time, but I'd be interested in aspects of the issue that me be far afield from anything I mentioned.

I think the instant availability of images on the LCD screen means that journalists can self-edit a little more readily and take steps to get the shots they think they have missed. But only a shooter who is really good at editing his work (few people are) could really take advantage of this. Being able to transmit the images to the magazine and receive feedback from an editor while putting together a story, however, will certainly influence how and what you shoot.

It's not digital, it's the evil photoshop ;-)

Subject: <i> " How is digital changing photojournalism and documentary photography</i>"?<P>Not at all regarding your subject question.<br>First you guys (non-PJs) question the PJs motives as to why s/he made that particular shot, were there others, better shots? What was s/he thinking when they made it? Worse, you (<i>many of "you"</i>) go into the: "<i>what did they leave out</i>" shtick, what is it we missed? That is sickening and worse, self-serving. To impugn the motives of a person who by their organization's and crafts' codes of Photojournalistic ethics don't do any of the things they are accused of, is the worse kind of put down.<p>Whether the shooter is a raw rookie PJ or old-timer, "Pro" lenses and bodies generally make sharp images, be they digital or film and so, with new image processing, what you see is close to what the PJ saw-minus any post production "enhancements". <p>Every time PJs are discussed, it is as if they have something to do with what you see published.<br> Put this way: The PJ is step 1 in the process. S/he makes the shot, uploads the shot from Rangoon or Tokyo by Satellite dish, and goes about their business. End of PJ involvement. <br>Ever been the primary Photographer at a wedding? Think out the post wedding workflow chart and you'll more easily understand why PJs are not responsible for what you see.<br>After the wedding shots are made, there are a lot of post production steps involved and whereas you are the "PJ", you in turn become the Photo-editor, art director and editorial staff deciding on what goes in and what gets pitched out of the wedding portfolio; the PJ performs none of these steps so it is patently unfair to connect step 1 to the final product for them in that what the PJ uploaded may not even come close to what you see in print or on TV.

I think digital is having something of the same effect on pj and documentary photography that portable satelite equipment and digital video have had on TV news; the value judegment has shifted. Rather than analysing relevance based on editorial principles (whatever they may be), relevance is now based on immediacy. If it's happening now, and you can show it now, it must be relevant. We have been seeing this in TV news for a while now; my local stations can't get through a 20 minute broadcast with out 10 minutes of remote shots of unfolding events. But the raw, unedited world isn't always news. I think we are starting to see the same thing in photography. Images that we might not have cared about in the past are revealed to us simply due to their technical perfection and their immediate availability.

 

I'm not questioning the skills of every pj who shoots digital. Some of the old war horses and rookies too have talent regardless of the media they choose to work in. But I think digital has reaped the harvest sown by the honing of pro level AF/AE; someone with little talent can create an "acceptable" image that has the prime virtue of immediacy.

 

As far as the "crystaline clarity" goes I think we are loosing something by not having to make the same compromises that film forced on us. Unlimited DOF isn't always a good thing. Sharp focus isn't always a good thing. For that matter, dead on exposure isn't always a good thing. Mistakes and compromises are human. They let us know that an actually human was behind that camera. That's worth something.

Two cups later. If we want to pretend that digital and all that accompanies it is not changing our perception of the world, I guess we can do that, but it seems like a head in the sand attitude to me. We live in a world, I think, in which more and more of our routine daily activities are pre-programmed and embedded in chips that are becoming ubiquitous. Our entertainment, our work product, and a lot more are predetermined in both large and subtle ways.<br>    Here is a related question: How long will it be before news agencies are using pictures snapped by small, unmanned aircraft? Will the editors sit at the controls? A more likely scenario is that they will simply accept copies provided to them by the government which maintains a monopoly on such technology. The pictures, shot in places where humans could not resonably survive, will be compelling and super sharp, much like the ones we see from inter-planetary missions and deep space probes. Will we remember to question the source and the motives?<br>    I think Americans are particularly susceptible to equating technological saturation with quality. If that were true, it seems we should be getting better informed and smarter all the time, yet it seems to me our view of the world beyond our borders is as dreadfully lacking in perspective as it always has been. And what of the personal responsibility of journalists in all this; are they absolved by being cogs in a huge machine, or are they complicit?

You are forgetting that obsession with sharpness and other technical ephemera is limited to photo.net--not the newspaper- and magazine-consuming public. Also, the printing processes for these media can only deliver so much sharpness, regardless of original image. There has never been a time, in the modern history of news media, that the public suffered images that were "unacceptable" because technology was lacking. Most people aren't photography critics or gearheads. Images in the media look the same as they did 40 years ago. There may be more modern or edgy shooting styles and more efficient techniques of manipulation but, except for the prevalance of color today, nothing has changed on the page.

40 years is a little past my event horizon, but I think that the look of images has changed in the last 20 if not the last 10 years, and I think technological change (not just digital) is driving that. An editorial shift may be in play as well as I argued earlier. The limitations of newspaper/magazine are completly capable of rendering the difference in certain aspects of image quality. Exposure, focus and to a certain extent grain and certainly DOF can be judged on output from anything but the worst press.

 

The obsession with sharpness (or more accurately the impression of sharpness) isn't just a feature of photo.net (although the obsession with bokeh may be). Hence the rising sales of 5 mp compacts with junk lenses instead of 3 mp with prime lenses. People don't have to be gearheads to appreciate technical perfection. In my experience, gearheads are far more accepting of technical compromises artistic or otherwise. The image consuming public seems to want it tack sharp and exactly exposed. And I think that they want this mostly because we tout technical perfection far more than the artful compromise.

 

Whew, let me climb down off my soap box.

"The image consuming public seems to want it tack sharp and exactly exposed."

 

Yes, when they take pictures of their grandchildren. But being a camera consumer and a news consumer are two different things.

"Will we remember to question the source and the motives?"

 

No more than we did when Wm. R. Hearst used the sinking of the Maine to whip up some war hysteria.

 

What ubiquitous coverage (digital or otherwise) results in is noticing less. It didn't take long to not see banner ads, and a picture of a dead kid, complete with shrapnel holes and blood, looks very much like all the rest of the dead kid pictures.

when virtually every human being is armed with a 10MP cell-phone camera, it seems likely that the masses will largely replace the PJ as a newsgatherer. in th epast, news orgs ahd to dispatch people to trouble spots, and then count on that person's contacts, intuition,a nd timing to get shots that conveyed the news. in a very few years, images of just about anything even a little bit significant that happens anywhere will be on the web. new services can rely on the "thousand monkeys typing" approach instead of counting on their own shakespeare to get the required images. it will be as is security cameras were constantly monitoring every populated spot on the globe.

 

this will also shift power completely to the editors. while they always had a lot of power, with respect to events for which there was limited coverage, the PJ had a chance to impose his own slant on the story by taking the kinds of images that told the story he wanted to tell. now, with tons of images pouring onto the web of any significant event, the editors will be able to pick and choose the shot they want that tells the story their way (or the publisher's way or the owner's way or the advetiser's way). but is suppose the democaracy of the web will balance things out a little.

 

as for technology, as storage capacities really beging to increase dramatically, how long will it be until digital movie cameras completely replace the still camera. if each FRAME of a digital movie had 3MP resolution, why would anybody -- at least any PJ -- bother to shoot still frames. firing with the machine gun will dramatically increase the kill ratio. pick through the stills later for the best one. stated differetly, how long til digital cameras have 10fps with 10mins of constant shooting on a single card at that rate??

 

so much for the decisive moment.

Why would someone posted a picture on a computer screen and asked us to identify if it is a digital? And more strangely, many answered.

 

Of course anything on the screen is digital. It's just a matter of first generation digital or second generation (film and scan). Not try to be a smart *ss but really a strange question that I have run across often time. How can anyone supposed to figure out if it is the first generation or the second generation. And what is the point of the question? Is it supposed to prove something? If you make prints from film compared to a digital print, I can tell you which is which, but not on a computer screen.

Roger Michel's post is depressing me;O(

 

Wentong Lin,

 

Bad day at work today perhaps?

 

No discussions in leica forum?

 

Burned out with your NW threads?

 

Yeah just thrash on me if it makes you feel better;O)

<i>when virtually every human being is armed with a 10MP cell-

phone camera, it seems likely that the masses will largely

replace the PJ as a newsgatherer. . . .</i><p>

I doubt it. There's a big difference between people snapping

shots of their friends and of girls' butts and people gathering

news. Just because someone has a phone that will record

images doesn't mean that the person will have any interest in or

talent for photographing news events.