Honestly, I'm no artist

Is photojournalism art?

There's a fine line.

Many photographers primarily known as artists have produced moving works of important social commentary. Great artists have helped shape and change the way we understand the world around us.

And photographers primarily known as photojournalists have produced finely crafted works of high aesthetic value. The great photojournalists bring creative vision and unique perspectives to the people, events, and issues they document.

Others, like portraitist Mary Ellen Mark, move fluidly between the commercial and editorial worlds.

Should there be a distinction? Well, I say it's always worth discussion because a photographer's intent is important in helping us understand the world through images.

Occasionally, people will see a photograph of mine and say something to the effect,"Scott, you really are an artist," or "Photography really is an art, isn't it?" And as appreciative and flattered as I am, I have mixed feelings.  A little bit of embarrassment. While I don't think I am without talent, I constantly see the work of others who seem to always have a magical way of seeing light, or composition, or color, or way of always finding the beauty or the defining moment in any subject they photograph. It's truly amazing. I'm just not in that league. At least not on a consistent basis.

Others seeing my work as "art" can be a source of frustration, at times. And admittedly, the source of this frustration is the frequently word-centric newsroom culture more than newspaper readers.

I find newsroom jargon entertaining, mostly. References to all head shots as "mug shots." Calling the first paragraph of a story the "lede" instead of lead. Editorial content (the news) is not the same as an editorial (opinion). There are terms like headlines, bylines, cutlines, datelines, and of course, deadlines. Graphs and nut graphs. Kicker heads, drop heads, and mastheads. Typos, jumps, teasers, dummies, and refers (pronounced REE-fer). And don't forget those names need to be CQed (checked for correct spelling).

But there's one term I have come to resent: Art. In the newsroom, art is a blanket term commonly used for any visual element to a story. A typical news meeting conversation may start like this:

"Okay, what stories do we have for the front page? Great. Do we have any art?"

It's usually uttered innocently enough, but it reeks of visual illiteracy. It comes from a mentality that subjugates anything visual to words. It lumps anything not text into a category considered by some to be decorations or window dressing. The term fails to recognize photographs and graphics as news content, with the ability to expand our understanding about stories, to help our readers really connect, instead of simply regurgitating what's already in the text or merely draw attention to a story.

I always hated when an editor or reporter asked me to help them "illustrate" a story. I'm not an illustrator. Instead, I might say, give me an understanding of the story, then let me explore the visual elements of it.

While attending a seminar a few years back, former Dallas Morning News Director of Photography John Davidson explained how he went about changing newsroom culture towards photography. One of the things he did was to ban the use of the word "art" to describe photographs. His superiors backed him up, too. Some may have griped about semantics, but it was a step towards recognizing the importance of photographs in communicating the news.

I can't say how refreshing it's been to work in a newsroom today that calls photographs photographs, graphics graphics, and illustrations illustrations. Each has a unique way of communicating information. They deserve as much thought and recognition for the skill required to produce them as do words.

Anyway, back to intent. An artists uses a medium - paint, clay, words, photography - to express a deeply personal vision. With imagination. Creativity. Skill. Talent.

Great photojournalists bring these traits to their work. And it would be dishonest to say that photojournalists do not bring a point-0f-view to their work. All photography is ultimately an interpretation of what the photographer sees. In journalism, objectivity really isn't the objective ( and that's a frequent misunderstanding about journalism - and the subject of another post, at another time). While the artist has few boundaries and the freedom to change or alter what they see if it better expresses their vision, the photojournalist is bound to a code of ethics that include a commitment to fairness and accuracy in all they portray.

I think what ultimately distinguishes photojournalists from artists is their fundamental role as witnesses to history. While the artist is a voice who reflects and comments on culture through his or her work, the photojournalist gives a voice to others.

Both noble and valuable objectives, in my opinion.

Seriously, I'm not an artist. Not by trade, at least.

Thursday, January 28, 2010 | posted in behind the lens, commentary, photojournalism | 2 comments [ More ]

The Mug Shot: Assignments that make photographers want to scream, Part 2

The head shot, or mug shot, as it's referred to by cynical newsroom denizens,  is the most rudimentary kind of photograph published in news periodicals.

Just to be clear to those not schooled in newsroom lingo, "mug shot" refers to any generic head shot, not just police mugs created when someone is arrested. It may also refer to simple photographs of buildings or objects, not just people.

They are ubiquitous and even sometimes necessary - a necessary evil to those who would rather spend their time telling stories with their pictures instead of making mindless snapshots of newsmakers' faces.

Truthfully, although the quality of headshots submitted for publication varies wildly, they are simple for a trained photographer to create. Easy as pie, really.

So why the protest? It has nothing to do with degree of difficulty. Sometimes, the use of mug shots is perfectly appropriate. A simple head shot is frequently all that is necessary to identify someone who makes an interesting quote, but does nothing of particular visual interest. It is customary to publish a head shot of a columnist, as well.

It has more to do with allocation of time, resources, and use of editorial space.

It has been my experience (and that of many other photojournalists I have talked to) that the mug shot is far too frequently the default choice as a visual story element assigned by some editors and writers. A chronic problem? Not really, but just enough to annoy the living daylights out of photographers who are more interested in documenting real people living active lives.

In a past job, I once worked for an editor who was obsessed with mug shots. The newsroom management was pushing for more visuals, and this editor insisted on mug shots of people quoted in stories or mentioned in the story lede (that's newsroom lingo for the first paragraph of a story) whenever possible. The editor wanted mug shots of every public official in 3 or 4 counties, including the municipalities within those counties. "Readers want to know what people look like," was the rationale. I never made it to every council and commission meeting, but spent a lot of time shooting head shots of officials sitting behind microphones. It was sheer tedium.

The biggest problem I had with that wasn't the ennui. It's that I wasn't really doing  journalism. Shooting mug shots is a form of documentation and reporting, in a sense. What someone looks like can certainly be considered a "fact." Documentation and reporting can be drudgery - just ask a good investigative writer. But journalism is about documenting facts, sorting through them, and helping people understand how those facts might be important or enlightening. I'm just not convinced that a tiny picture that only shows what someone looks like accomplishes much worthwhile. Color me skeptical.

"Large photos and documentary photos drew more eyes than small photos or staged photos."

-- The Poynter Institute, Eyetracking The News

There's been numerous studies about the reading habits of newspaper readers. One of the most well known facts is that a photograph can significantly increase the readership of an accompanying story. Lesser known, however,  were findings which showed that mug shots do NOT significantly increase readership. And I challenged my editor's notions about mugshots in a meeting about visuals. In front of the executive editor, no less. My challenge was met with skepticism, and I wasn't prepared. I couldn't produce a copy of the report. And, at the time, internet search engines weren't quite so robust, and I couldn't locate the study on the web. Foiled.

So now, a bit belatedly, here it is!

The latest eyetrack studies, focusing on readers' on-line habits this time, confirmed the same findings conducted on printed products years ago: mug shots don't substantially increase readership. A postage stamp-sized mug shot on a test page was viewed by only 10% of participants.

To be fair, this study mostly considers the size of photographs on web pages and concluded that bigger photos hold the eye longer than smaller photos - well, duh! The study also determines that faces drew the eye, which, on the surface, might give some credence to the notion that readers want to know what people look like. It's not rocket science, though - viewers' eyes will be drawn to faces in a picture - regardless of the type of picture. That's human nature.

Mug shots are typically published very small. And this study strongly suggests that small photos don't get much attention, even if they show what someone looks like. And it suggests they aren't likely increase readership of the accompanying story.

Based on this study, however, the only case you can make for using mug shots with every story is if you use them big - and that might produce a fistfight with me.

Another study, a little older but more thorough, strongly suggested that large photos and documentary photos drew more eyes than small photos or staged photos. Mug shots received relatively little attention. More vindication?

Ultimately, this topic is not such a big deal. Fact is, with photo staffs shrinking at newspapers everywhere, editors are much more likely to stick a point-and-shoot camera in a reporter's hand and ask him or her to produce a mug shot for a story. So most staff photojournalists are largely relieved from this duty, albeit for dubious reasons.

Hmmmm. This post might be the result of an ornery mood. Maybe the result of writers block with a blog newbie. Perhaps an exercise in catharsis, in response to long ago unsuccessful attempts to enlighten the visually challenged. These things bubble up on occasion. I hope, oh readers, that you may be entertained, if not enlightened.

One thing for certain, THIS photographer needs a better mug shot of himself -- for the paper, that is, not for police files.

Any volunteers?

Friday, January 22, 2010 | posted in behind the lens, daily work, photojournalism, professional technique | 2 comments [ More ]

Eyes on Haiti: The glory or the story?

Like most everyone, I've been following the coverage of the earthquake and its aftermath in Haiti. My heart goes out.

And as a member of the news media, I pay attention to the way things are covered. I am fascinated by the ways different mediums communicate -- text, video, photographs, graphics, etc -- their strengths and weakness in communicating, and how they are combined to give us a more complete understanding of events and issues. I watch how other people approach news coverage, not only to better understand the issues, but to think of ways I can make myself a better journalist.

I have to admit, though, I really don't understand some approaches that have become common, especially in television news.

Yesterday, I watched a report by Anderson Cooper on CNN. Professional journalists were finally making their way into Haiti and helping us gain perspective on the scope of the tragedy, as well as helping us connect to real people and the earthquake's effect on their lives. Cooper found people trying to dig a survivor out of the rubble, with nothing more than their hands. The camera panned back and forth between Cooper and the devastation as he explained what was going on.  At times, he was literally inches away from those digging, seemingly dodging their movements on occasion. All the while, you could hear the cries of the young girl buried in the twisted building. They saved the girl, and the story she told was gripping. View the report for yourself.

But I have to say, Cooper's report made me extremely uncomfortable.

Now, let me be perfectly clear. I did not have a problem with Cooper reporting while others were digging to save a life. People often think journalists have no hearts because they are reporting instead of helping in tragic situations. But I strongly believe that journalists are helping by reporting. That being said, we are human beings first. If there is no one else available, if it is a life-and-death situation and there is no alternative, then you put down the camera, or the microphone, or the notebook and help. By all means.

But the very act of witnessing such tragedies, then sharing that experience with thousands or millions of people, has extraordinary value to society. When you can move people emotionally, you can literally move them into action. Reporting on tragedy is, or should be, an act of compassion, first and foremost, to generate compassion for the subjects of such reports.

But Cooper's report left me squirming. Why? Because of the way he inserted himself into the story. He found a moving situation. I appreciated the explanation and the context. But I couldn't get past his flitting around with a microphone giving us the play-by-play.

This story could have been approached and presented in a number of ways. I would rather have heard Cooper's voice narrating and explaining the whole time. I didn't need to see his face and his microphone. It was distracting, to say the least. Perhaps the story was shot this way to expedite delivery. By shooting the story this way, it may have been easier to edit and transmit from the scene. Editing video is a time consuming process. The more separate elements there are to combine (the visual part, the natural sound, the narration), the longer it takes to edit. And that's always an important consideration in breaking news.

But this story should have been about the people involved in the effort. They should have been the focus. Had they been, I think the piece would have been infinitely more powerful. Even while interviewing the girl after she was freed, the camera still panned gratuitously towards Cooper. Why?

David LaBelle, my college photojournalism professor, used to pound this into our heads:

"In the end, it's not about YOU."

YOU meaning the journalist. Some journalists have a way with words, or a gift for seeing things in unique ways. They are masters of their medium, whether it's with words, or a camera, or a microphone. The competency and natural talent of the messenger can help facilitate deeper understanding. But the very best journalists are those who become transparent in the communication process. Instead of standing between you and their subjects, you feel that you are standing in the place of the journalist. You, the reader or viewer, become the eye witness.

Shouldn't it be about the story?

What do YOU think?

Friday, January 15, 2010 | posted in commentary, photojournalism | 1 comments [ More ]

Shooting sports: don't stop when the whistle blows

People love sports photographs. There's something magical about freezing a key moment during a game or match, at the peak of action. Still photographs are a different way to experience sports. It's a completely different encounter from reading a sports story, or even watching television replays of unforgettable moments. Athletes are captured, forever, in the midst of sometimes incredible feats. Photographs allow us to examine every detail, every bead of sweat, rippling muscles, the grace, the power, sometimes even the humor.

Sports photography is frustrating for many. To get us close to the action, you need expensive telephoto lenses. You need expensive cameras capable of making a rapid burst of frames, not to mention the capability to freeze action in sometimes poor lighting conditions. Sometimes it takes years to learn the skills and gain knowledge of a particular sport so you can anticipate what the important actions are.

So what can you do if you don't own pro gear or you're just starting out? Here's something that all the best sports photographers know -- don't stop shooting when a play is over and there is a break in the action.

While some pictures of peak action are amazing and show us key moments in a competition, many (most?) are routine and cliche. Many actions in sports are repetitive, such as throwing a football, shooting a basketball, making a golf swing ... they don't necessarily tell us much about the significance of the action. Each individual sporting event has its own story to tell, and frequently those story-telling moments happen after the play ends. Re-action is what you should be looking for. A football player celebrating a sack speaks more to the magnitude of the play than the sack itself. Players get tackled hundreds of times during a game. A shot of a player shooting a basketball doesn't tell us if he made it -- could have been an airball. But a shot of the player reacting and the bench exploding tells you right away without having to read anything.

 Look to the sidelines and in the stands, as well. The reaction of a coach or the looks on fans' faces can sometimes tell you more about the game story than an action shot.

 There's a term coined by pro sports photographers. It's called "chimping," and it describes the act of habitually checking your pictures on your digital camera's LCD screen immediately after making a series of exposures. At first, it was a derogatory term, used to demean photographers who are either insecure in their ability to create correct exposures, or infatuated with their ability to immediately see the results of their effort.

On one hand, chimping is perfectly acceptable. It takes advantage of the ability digital cameras have to give us immediate feedback. It's a great thing to shoot test frames and check for proper exposure and color balance. In the film days, you might have your settings incorrect, and you wouldn't know until the film was developed -- too late, in other words. And I use the capability to mark my best images as I go, so I can edit faster once the event is over.

However, if you're constantly reviewing your images after every play, you're probably missing some of the best shots.

So if you don't have 20 grand or so to outfit yourself like the pros, don't be a "chimp," and don't stop shooting when the whistle blows.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 | posted in photography tips, photojournalism, professional technique, sports photography | 0 comments [ More ]

Teaching to teach

With 2009 behind us, it's time to start looking forward. In my case, it's about finding new stories to tell and finding different ways to tell reoccurring stories. It's also time to start prepping for another role I've taken on - that of a teacher.

I've been invited again to teach a class on photojournalism at Georgia Southern University this spring semester. I've done it twice, and it's a new experience each time. Because of new students, of course. But my profession and the industry changes at such a pace that I have to revise material and add new material each time. It's a lot of work and, at times, frustrating, but it's something I look forward to. Not only am I passing on knowledge and skills to a new generation, but it helps me focus on my own work and my own role as a photojournalist. I enjoy getting into the minds of aspiring journalists. I learn a lot about the habits of young people as consumers of information. Often, I end up learning as much from my students as I hope they are learning from me.

One of the challenges is that I am teaching a class on photojournalism to students who, overwhelmingly, won't take up photojournalism as a career. Many are journalism majors who will mostly likely become writers or editors. There are usually a fair share of broadcast majors, some going into television, some radio. And there are usually some public relations majors, as well. I have to teach my class much differently than the way I was taught as a college student majoring in photojournalism.

I see this as an opportunity. Over the years, I have worked with many writers and editors who simply didn't understand what I do. They didn't understand how photographs communicate, what the process is to create photographs that communicate, and and how the medium of photography can best be used to enlighten our readers and create meaningful discussion among them about our communities. They saw photographs as merely "art" playing a supporting role to text. Making a photo assignment was just something on a checklist. Some were resistant, and sometimes downright hostile, to the idea that photographs could be as important, sometimes more important, to telling a story as words were.

So there is just a tiny bit of selfish motivation in teaching college students. Hopefully, I can get them to start thinking about how to communicate with photographs before they even get into newsrooms as working journalists.

Mostly, though, my motivation is to share. Just as I share my experiences with Statesboro Herald readers through photography, I share my experiences as a working photojournalist with the next generation of working journalists. Beyond my personal experience with smaller newspapers, I also try to expose my students to the work and thinking of some of the greatest photojournalists, living and dead. And I try introduce them to the process and approach necessary to creating meaningful photographs.

The business of journalism is changing, too. Newsroom staffs are shrinking everywhere. Most every reporter in the near future can expect, at some time, to have a camera put in their hands and be asked to produce competent news photographs or video. Most journalists are drawn to a particular discipline, such as writing, or photography, or informational graphics. But today's journalist is being asked to have more than one skill. A writer who can shoot competent news photographs will be much more marketable as an employee coming out of college.

In a sense, teaching a college class is an extension of what I already do as a journalist. I explore our community and gather information, through photographs, so people may learn and make informed decisions about life. In that sense, I am a teacher every day. If I am successful in the classroom, I will be teaching others to teach.

Thursday, January 7, 2010 | posted in | 0 comments [ More ]