kids in parks, face painting, wild art, etc. (fwd)
John Blodgett
ourselves creatively - but it is quite a challenge.
Reality:
1) Many papers rely on wild art
2) Most people love seeing themselves, their kids or friends and family
in the paper
3) Most of these people will love any photo, regardless of what we
photojournalists think of it
4) Many photogs get bummed out at having to hunt for features, and, in
blowing it off, continue to offer the same old same old that we complain
about papers running.
Or something to that effect...my point is, treat it as a challenge and
try to show old things in new ways. After all, thats what this biz is all
about - taking universal, 'cliche' moments (love, hate, happiness, joy,
despair, etc.) and communicating these moments to others in a relevant
and fresh way. Make the readers not involved with the photo (subject,
parent, friend, etc.) notice it. Give them a reason to look at a
photograph.
Why don't we as photojournalists like 'grip and grins?' They're
contrived, they're literal, they boost the egos of the persons gripping
and grinning, they don't tell the story behind the check (how was the
money raised, who raised it, etc.), etc etc blah blah.
Are readers as against them as we are? I think they look or don't look or
don't care either way. But if they know someone in the picture, they'll
get a kick out of it.
Look at the traditional 'kid in the park' photo in a similar way. Get
beyond the obvious - beyond the kid on a swing - and look for the reasons
why a kid goes to a park. Its not so much the swing as it is the feelings
derived from swinging. And this doesn't necessarily just mean photograph a
kid smiling broadly while swinging. People know what swinging looks like,
show what it feels like.
John Doe, Sr. will love any picture of John, Jr. on a swing that makes
the paper. Others may look at it, say 'huh, thats nice', and move on.Why
can't we offer something more than the standard and make them say 'wow,
thats pretty neat!'? The reader is served, and we are satisifed.
I realize that feature hunting ranks low on many photogs' lists of
preferred things to do. But its part of the job for many of us, and if we
have to do it, we might as well try and be happy rather than be
miserable. This goes beyond features, of course.
If only I could practice what I preach...or get off this computer and go
to bed...
jb
Joe Knor
the feeling behind the swinging." It's 2:55 p.m., I've been looking for a
picture for four hours, put 45 miles on my car, have a budget meeting at
4:30 and must have pic in hand at the meeting. Sorry to ignore the reason
behind the swing and the feelings, but I have to grap the pic and make
budget. The Ed. always makes nasty comments when I don't. I understand
your premise, but don't forget the reality.
Greg Mironchuk
Subject: kids in parks, face painting, wild art, etc. (fwd)
>
-------
>Reality:
>1) Many papers rely on wild art
In my experience, this "reliance on wild art" is Editorial Laziness... 12
or 18 column inches filled in one fell swoop... that doesn't have to be
planned or written or edited... most often an extension of the "pictures
are there to take up space between the words" concept, which I had hoped
this industry had been putting behind itself. Photography, not
photo-JOURNALISM.
----------
>2) Most people love seeing themselves, their kids or friends and family
>in the paper
I have always loved newspapers, and still have my mother's scrapbook of my
youthful appearances in our local 'paper.
I have such an overwhelming love and respect for this business, and for the
people who work in it, and the product that we produce, that I don't care
to cheapen it by just casually photographing people, and publishing their
faces for no particularly good reason at all. I had to EARN my pictures in
my hometown 'paper (for which I currently work, by the way) by winning a
science fair, or getting a Scouting award, or performing some community
service. So can they.
Getting into one of my papers is an accomplishment. There is VALUE in being
recognized, and having your story told to everyone. People like to be seen
in the 'paper because it is a WORTHWHILE experience, not a cheap
experience.
When someone comes up to me and says "Hey Mister, take my picture...", I
tell them that they have to do something worth photographing, and "putting
in the 'paper"... and when they do, I WILL take their picture, and put it
in the 'paper.
------------
>Why don't we as photojournalists like 'grip and grins?' They're
>contrived, they're literal, they boost the egos of the persons gripping
>and grinning, they don't tell the story behind the check (how was the
>money raised, who raised it, etc.), etc etc blah blah.
>Are readers as against them as we are?
>
You Bet Your Ass they are. They may not be able to verbalize this feeling
(and why should they... we're here to inform and entertain THEM, not the
other way around), but newps that DON'T use them always sell more/better
than newps that do.
Readers can tell which 'paper is EARNING their readership with thoughtful,
careful, precise, professional journalism, and hard work... and which
'paper is dogging it, with cheap pictures, press releases, re-written wire
copy, puff pieces on advertisers, and profiles of Friends-Of-Publishers.
Cranky, Mean Ol' Greg M.