Is "photojournalism" becoming outdated?

[William Michael]

Any particular `style` does not override the basics of exposure; composition; creating quality light scapes and attending to the client`s needs, professionally, efficiently and courteously.

 

A more formal recording of the people at the event and reportage on the event can happily co exist, or be biased one way or the other and equally address the client`s needs and both be done with technical excellence and in a professional manner (or not).

 

What is offensive to the client and insulting to the profession is when `Photojournalism` is used a as defence to excuse (or as rationalization or an explanation to clients) for what essentially is poor quality; poor attitude and poor skills:

 

>>> I see too many pictures of things, not enough of people, too many heads cut off, too much scabby available light. <<< (SH)

 

This is not the fault of photojournalistic style; this is the result of inferior skills.

 

>>> In short, PJ has become trite. <<< (SH)

 

Is a different question.

 

Fashion does not one day just become trite, it moves in ebbs and flows: in different circles and at differing speeds.

 

In this regard, the more Formal Group shots, for example, are still quite commonplace in many areas, and moreover are expected by many clients, even those who request more a reportage style, for the overall capture.

 

 

WW

[steve_hovland]

Here's an exercise that some of you might find informative: take your "dress hanging in window" picture and compare it to a dress ad in a bridal magazine. See any room for improvement?

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>Wedding Style for a posed and more `formal approach` was vogue when Capa et al were very busy, with similar equipment capturing most famous images in photojournalistic style.</i>

<p>

Capa et al. photographed mostly outdoors, in natural light. PJ shooting became common with fast lenses, high quality fast film, autofocus, image stabilizers, fast zooms, and digital SLRs. All of these technical advances have made it possible to capture high quality images in natural light / available artificial light indoors.

<p>

In any case the photojournalistic work by Capa and his contemporaries would be considered grainy and muddy by today's standards and would not be able to compete with formal color photography in the same way that modern digital SLR photography can.

[William Michael]

>>> Capa et al. photographed mostly outdoors, in natural light. etc <<< (NI)

 

Yes I agree with the contextual facts you make in the last post: however it seems to me your statement is now different, hence my agreement.

 

The point I was making was, IMO, photojournalistic style (for Weddings) was not driven solely by technological advancements.

 

If it were, then a more photojournalistic style would have been evident, at least to some extent, even to a very small extent throughout the era of Capa et al.

 

That was the reason for my Capa reference: Some Wedding photographers at THAT time could have taken a more journalistic approach, albeit if only (as pointed out) in the outdoors, as there WAS equipment available to do so and there were examples in other genre of photography to copy or style oneself upon.

 

Granted, the technical results would have been more grainy that a 5 x 4 plate, but that was what was photojournalistic style was THEN.

 

Absolutely, the advancements of AF and faster colour emulsions with small(er) grain (etc) made higher (technical) quality photojournalism possible, to ALL photographers: and some Wedding Photographers moved that way initially, and then more so.

 

A fashion of Photojournalism`s movement in one genre of photography (i.e. Weddings) being INFLUENCED by further technological advancements is a statement with which I agree.

 

However, agreement with that statement does not imply agreement with: `(IMO) the only reason traditional posed approaches were prevalent early in the history of wedding photography is because that is all that could be done using the equipment available at the time.`

 

Hope that explains my point better.

 

Regards,

 

WW

[shawn_mertz]

Here's an exercise that some of you might find informative: take your "dress hanging in

window" picture and compare it to a dress ad in a bridal magazine. See any room for

improvement?

 

Yes Steve There is room for improvement comparing a photo a I make alone in 2-3

minutes and a photo that has a creative team and takes half a day to make. From viewing

your very good interior photos I think you know this.

 

BTW your wedding photos are not all exposed and color corrected either. What is your

wedding style I can't tell from the few wedding photos you have? I hope that doesn't

sound critical, I just wonder where you are coming from.

[steve_hovland]

Shawn- You are correct about the pictures presently on my site- I need to rebuild it with more recent pictures which would better represent where I am now.

 

You can also see that I don't always correct for artistic reasons. It depends on what I am trying to do.

 

The problem I see is that some people don't have enough technique to have any control over rendition.

 

As far as the typical dress shot is concerned, most of them would look better if people just added some flash from the camera position, if that's not too heretical :-)

[shawn_mertz]

The biggest problem with wedding photojournalism is the many people that are not really

doing it and saying they are. (there is nothing wrong with other styles but if you were

selling strawberry ice cream wouldn't it be a mistake to call it Raspberry?)

 

The second is presentation, there is a place for detail photos it is not in the 1 st 3-4

photos on someone's website.

 

I understand why you don't work every image but I recommend the first images in your portfolio should be. I commend you for taking the time to think through what you are

doing and where you are going.

[steve_jacobs5]

No, but the word is.........