Is "photojournalism" becoming outdated?

[steve_hovland]

Any trend that becomes dominant soon becomes decadent.

 

I see too many pictures of things, not enough of people, too many heads cut

off, too much scabby available light.

 

In short, PJ has become trite.

[Matt Laur]

No, I'd say that it has become more common, and the novelty has worn off... and thus the bar has been raised. So, PJ-style work isn't dead, but boring/bad PJ-style work is just easier to spot, and there's more of <i>it</i> than there is the really good stuff. Just like it always has been in every field. Photographers and customers both are now - especially with so many fine examples online to look at - far more discerning (or should be!). Lazy style-aping isn't new to PJ-style event coverage, and being numb to the less-inspiring output of people who follow the trend without producing really nice work is... normal, I guess. Here's what I recommend: stop <i>calling</i> it "PJ" coverage. Make it "Steve Hovland"-style coverage, and settle down people's cliche-o-meters that are fired up the moment they hear or read "PJ" as part of one's pitch/portfolio.

[wedding-photography-denver]

I agree, its become more common and perhaps less exclusive.

 

I think it's having to go through a stage where the public in general will see what good style is and those who shoot poor work will begin to go the way of the dodo.

 

I don't think pj to be trite, just so much of it is not really pj and more... 'shot for the sake of a shot' kinda shooting. I love available light... when I love the light and its effect, but am very happy to add light to get a look I want. I don't think pj work need be available light, but it can be. As for cut off heads, well that depends on the interpretation and the intention of the photog. (what they are trying to express in the shot).

 

Not dead, just going through some clarification.

[wedding-photography-denver]

Steve, do you shoot pj?

[steve_hovland]

I don't see my approach as PJ. No wide open f1.4 lenses, flash to some degree on almost every shot, not really a fly on the wall :-)

[justin_hall]

I think its a brilliant question to pose Steve.

 

You could argue that it is very easy for amateurs to pass of their work as being professional by calling it photojournalistic in style.

 

Being a photojournalistic seems to imply shooting available light with low-light lenses and no flash, without the hassle of arranging lighting or poses (which is in fact what I do!)

 

People tend to like things that are different or unusual, PJ has become the norm I think which means that traditional, film based photographers may become more in demand.

 

I certainly hope so, I feel that traditional photographers (who understand lighting, poses, managing groups etc) are very much undervalued and photographers/clients are too hasty in writing them off.

 

I would love to provide both services and learn both styles of our trade.

[picturesque]

Personally, I've always thought wedding photographer were PJs to some extent, even way back when. They have always photographed the ceremony without posing, extra lighting (beyond on-camera) or stopping action.

 

One can't really answer the question without defining what wedding photojournalism is, something that basically impossible to do.

[conraderb]

Steve - I consider myself much more of a PJ than traditional shooter, but I try not to focus on things or people.

 

Maybe cutting off heads won't be cool in the future, but I think that there will always be a market for an image that helps someone recall the feel of an event or the mood.

 

Take the image below. It isn't traditional at all - it isn't posed or setup in any way. In my mind, it conveys a sense of what the mood was like - two families meeting (these guys are both relatives of the couple, exchanging garlands before a Hindu wedding ceremony).

 

But the lighting is great, it is about PEOPLE, expressions are great, no cut off heads.

 

Is the below PJ or traditional? I hope that while this is PJ, it has all the good elements of PJ work and none of the bad.

[marysledd]

Yes and No.

 

I'm a "wedding photojournalist" and I have 25 weddings booked for 2008 so far. So... brides are still buying the PJ thing. I use lots of off camera flash and happily do lots of formals so I'm not strictly PJ, but that is how I market myself.

[todd_k.]

Some aspects of todays PJ style have become a little trite. But a good candid is a good candid. A good posed shot is a good posed shot. The vast majority of people want both. The key is to not let your work be dominated by todays trends, just mildly influenced by them. By doing this your images will stay current, but still stand the test of time. Think about all those poor brides with albums full of cross processed shots or the selective colorization that was so prevalent a few years ago.

[nicola inglis]

Yes, but they are also wearing dresses that date, carrying flowers that go in and out of fashio...etc etc. I think your images should reflect the time in which they were shot. What's the point of removing all the references to the time/date? Should we also remove all references to place? We get married *when* we get married, we value that date and we count the years from it. I say we should embrace the styles that reflect the time, it's all about placing the wedding in its wider context. Brandy glass anyone ;-)

[neilambrose]

<p><em>I see too many pictures of things, not enough of people, too many heads cut

off, too much scabby available light.</em></p>

 

<p>I think the reason for this is there are more bad wedding photographers around

than there used to be. Some of whom claim a PJ style because it suits their style of

random snap shots - with the results that you note. But if it's done well - where the

photographer truly tells a story, and captures real and relevant moments - then there's

nothing trite about it. I don't think a good story ever goes out of fashion.</p>

 

<p>Photojournalism is alive and well as long as it's well executed.</p>

[ian_villaceran]

Not really. I am a film shooter and I always have like mini sessions when shooting weddings as to manage my film usage well. Shooting the getting ready, ceremony and reception always require photojournalism style of shooting. Whereas, bridal sessions or formals would only need traditional approach. So I say, photojournalism is alive and will always be part of shooting weddings regardless of your style.

[christopher hartt dallas]

I think "photojournalism" is becoming outdated as an excuse for poor quality photography. When a client hires a "professional," they want to see results that are superior to something they can shoot themself with the $645 Costco Rebel XTi and kit lens. The amount of poor quality wedding photojournalism is at an all-time high. As clients catch on to what's happening, I think they are demanding more accountability from the professional photographer.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

I'm afraid too many young shooters try to work on "style" before they develop their photography craftsmanship.

[cappy_morhoun]

You might as well say that having your wedding photographed has become trite.

 

Matt Laur put it well, the bar has been raised.

 

I can't think of one couple that didn't ask for the combo of traditional mixed with photojournalistic/candid coverage. Whatever they think that is.

 

Yep, it's easier for an amature to pass themselves off as a knowledgable pro. I wouldn't hold my breath for some backlash against "the trend" or some magical resurgence of the good old days of film though.

[ian_villaceran]

What is a photography craftsmanship?

[colleendonovan]

I know I'm tired of it. :) And honestly most brides don't even know what it means because just about every photographer out there claims to be a photojournalist and their styles are all over the place!! I'm so glad I'm not a bride shopping for a photographer.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

"What is a photography craftsmanship?-Ian

 

The question should be "what is photography craftsmanship?"

[steve_hovland]

I would put these elements in craftsmanship: composition (which includes posing), timing, lighting, exposure, color balance.

 

Feel free to suggest more.

 

Skilled photographers do all of these things well in the moment.

[ian_villaceran]

No, what is a "photography craftsmanship"? Really, what is it? I was asking for the term itself because the way I understood having a distinct style or trying to work on style first would then be considered as working on photographic craftsmanship. I am just simply curious.

[steve_hovland]

Real style comes from within you. Craft makes it possible to manifest your style.

 

Doing a lot of cross-processing is not style. It's a cheap trick.

[steve_hovland]

True, content is king, but great content with good technique is better. Some people might assert that their pictures are better because of their crappy technique.

[steve_hovland]

Ian: craft is the technical part, style is the expressive part. For craft, look at things like Feininger's "Total Picture Control" or "Light- Science and Magic" or "Skin" by Lee Varis.

 

For style get a subscription to American Cinematographer to read about people who use craft for dramatic effect at a very high level.

[dawn_kelly]

To me, PJ style started to sky-rocket when a lot of people started buying digital cameras and thought "Hey I can photograph a wedding and just delete the ones that don't turn out." As has already been mentioned, not everyone has mastered the use of flash, natural light, posing the B&G, and especially posing a group. Just my opinion...