Photo of James Comey testifying before U.S. Congress

[Hector Javkin]

An article in the New York Times offers an interview with the NYT photographer. I thought his description of how he prepared and executed was fascinating.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I am sure glad I am not a press photographer, what a circus! There appear to be about 40 photographers around (how many of those are allowed or have put up remote cameras as well?); that's a lot of man power and equipment and for what exactly (everything was video-taped from various angles, so why have any photographers in the room)? Obviously, based on position, only a few could have gotten that shot in question. So kudos to the photographer to be at the right place at the right time well prepared and ready to take whatever he could. But in the end it's still "just a lucky shot". Instantly transmitted to the photo editors in NYC and published withing minutes (for what reason actually?).

 

As an aside, there appeared to be a lot more Canon than Nikon among those press photographers, and not all seem to be shooting with the pro-style bodies.

[bob_bill]

Standard monopod/cable release technique, but am surprised he was allowed to bring in a monopod and to do it. Looks like he was blocking view of the participants when he raised the camera. Better to ask forgiveness than permission. Near the end of the hearing, the photographers were reprimanded for moving before they should. I wonder if they could have gotten any more photographers in that small space. Reminds me of "how many photographers does it take to..." say change a light bulb. 100. 1 to put in the light bulb and 99 to tell them how they would do it.

[GerrySiegel]

I was impressed by the length of the monopod he used. Took some strength. I think he said he used a radio trigger which sounds likely. Anyway unless I am mistaken he got off his shots before the folks on the dais were all seated. That kind of work sure takes muscle and grit. For him it plain worked great. Terrific photo story telling..gs

[zlatko]

Excellent photo and an interesting story.

[Palouse]

Very interesting write-up. Great shots, but as for the subject in general---circus comes to mind! And a few folks appear to have not gotten the dress code memo--or perhaps they should be congratulated for being courageous enough to dare to be different.

[Uhooru]

I am sure glad I am not a press photographer, what a circus! There appear to be about 40 photographers around (how many of those are allowed or have put up remote cameras as well?); that's a lot of man power and equipment and for what exactly (everything was video-taped from various angles, so why have any photographers in the room)? Obviously, based on position, only a few could have gotten that shot in question. So kudos to the photographer to be at the right place at the right time well prepared and ready to take whatever he could. But in the end it's still "just a lucky shot". Instantly transmitted to the photo editors in NYC and published withing minutes (for what reason actually?).

 

As an aside, there appeared to be a lot more Canon than Nikon among those press photographers, and not all seem to be shooting with the pro-style bodies.

 

And yet that photo is probably the iconic picture of the event as its world wide popularity suggests. That pretty much answers your question. Photos still have a big impact. It also seems the 70-200 lens was a favorite of the photogs.

[Uhooru]

Standard monopod/cable release technique, but am surprised he was allowed to bring in a monopod and to do it. Looks like he was blocking view of the participants when he raised the camera. Better to ask forgiveness than permission. Near the end of the hearing, the photographers were reprimanded for moving before they should. I wonder if they could have gotten any more photographers in that small space. Reminds me of "how many photographers does it take to..." say change a light bulb. 100. 1 to put in the light bulb and 99 to tell them how they would do it.

 

I was wondering about that as well. I wonder if they are allowed to stand there once the hearing starts?

[Palouse]

I am sure glad I am not a press photographer, what a circus! There appear to be about 40 photographers around (how many of those are allowed or have put up remote cameras as well?); that's a lot of man power and equipment and for what exactly (everything was video-taped from various angles, so why have any photographers in the room)? Obviously, based on position, only a few could have gotten that shot in question. So kudos to the photographer to be at the right place at the right time well prepared and ready to take whatever he could. But in the end it's still "just a lucky shot". Instantly transmitted to the photo editors in NYC and published withing minutes (for what reason actually?).

 

As an aside, there appeared to be a lot more Canon than Nikon among those press photographers, and not all seem to be shooting with the pro-style bodies.

 

As I've pondered this for a while, I started to wonder about what pictures those cheap/millennial/smartphone-toting newspapers were able to capture.

And, I agree, a government man talking into a microphone is not particularly newsworthy, nor is it a shot of a decisive moment, it may come to be an iconic picture years from now. And it may help stave off the demise of professional photo journalism for some time.

[Uhooru]

As I've pondered this for a while, I started to wonder about what pictures those cheap/millennial/smartphone-toting newspapers were able to capture.

And, I agree, a government man talking into a microphone is not particularly newsworthy, nor is it a shot of a decisive moment, it may come to be an iconic picture years from now. And it may help stave off the demise of professional photo journalism for some time.

 

If you live in a cave, never read a newspaper or listen to the media and haven't any clue about history, you may fail to see anything significant in "a government man talking into a microphone. . ." as being not particularly newsworthy. Otherwise, this photograph of this man at this time is totally newsworthy, at least to anyone in the U.S. or concerned about the U.S.. Which I understand isn't everyone. I really don't see a demise of photo journalism, except for the demise of photo journalist who get killed in way too many war zones on the planet.

[Ed_Ingold]

If you watch these hearings (I do, because the reportage often bears no relationship to the facts), you notice that photographers frequently move about, but crouched as to not interfere with the video cameras. There are probably potty breaks too.

 

The "selfie stick" was probably a boom pole, used by sound guys in a location shoot. There's a 5/8" spud on the end which can be used with adapters for microphones or any screw mount, as well as swivels. I have a Gitzo CF boom which collapses to about 40", extends to 12' and weighs about 3 pounds. The practical weight limit is about 2-1/2 lbs, but more if not fully extended. You can thread a cable through the pole, but it would be easier to use a remote release (or cell phone in the case of a Sony A7 and others). With the Sony, you can view the image, frame and focus, as well as trip remotely, and upload the image to iCloud at the same time.

 

This is not rocket science, but makes use of existing technology in an innovative manner. Ansel Adams made a lot of tripod holes the rest of us are still looking for.

[bob_bill]

Shooting in a scrum is an experience. There were a dozen of us shooting a person 15 ' ahead of us. Suddenly, a photographer sat down 3 feet from the subject blocking all our shots. A good friend, a former teacher, knew how to deal with that, he left the dozen of us and stood in front of the sitter and made believe he was shooting. I don't think the guy got the message but we loved it.