Have we reached the end of the era of "iconic photojournalism"?

[Rajah Sulayman]

It's hardly news that in the last five years or so, photography--or, more accurately, production of photographs--has increased at almost exponential degrees. As of six months ago, Flickr boasted 4 Billion images. Almost a year ago, Facebook claimed to hit its 15 Billion mark, which has probably doubled since then. All of this in the span of barely half a decade.

And while most of the billions of images floating around the internet are noise, there's still a lot of signal to be found. The advent of dSLRs revolutionized photojournalism, and the ever-competitive field finds itself inundated with more and more people. Wire services like AP, Reuters, and Getty flood the news channels with thousands of amazing images daily. One need look no further than Boston.Com's Big Picture or SacBee's The Frame to find riveting, powerful, documentary images culled from the steady stream of media coming from the front lines. And while this is almost entirely a good thing--imagine how differently history would have played out if we'd always had this kind of unfettered access--I can't help but wonder if the sheer volume of incoming images doesn't dilute the impact of the individual photographs.

The amount we appreciate something is a lot of times in direct proportion to its scarcity. Which do we savor more: the first cookie in the box of fifty, or the last? What about the only we've tasted in a year? I look back to some of the most iconic photographs of the 20th Century and wonder if they would have reached the same level of fame and cultural impact if they had been produced today. I think of Steve McCurry's Afghan Girl, or Jeff Widener's Tank Man and wonder, "If I had seen these images while perusing the weekly update of The Big Picture, would I have given them much more notice than a few seconds of attention before moving on to the next photo? Would other people?"

And while much of the fame of images like McCurry's or Widener's can be attributed to exposure (a National Geographic cover photo from 1984 reached more people than most news wire images do today), Boston.Com or SacBee reach millions of users daily themselves. Likewise, it could be argued that there are many photos that come in through the news wires that easily rival Afghan Girl or Tank Man in terms of technical skill, emotional resonance, or sheer power. Yet none of these new images will likely ever affect the cultural landscape as profoundly as they did.

I try to think of recent photojournalistic images that had the reach and impact that the older ones did, and nothing comes to mind. And I can't help but wonder if, just as we will never again see another band like The Beatles, does the saturation of images brought on by the dSLR revolution and the fragmentation of major news outlets mean we will likewise never again see images with the global and cultural resonance of Afghan Girl or Tank Man? If there is more wheat now than there was chaff yesterday, has it become nigh-impossible for any single image to make a meaningful impact? Have we reached the end of iconic documentary images?

[BCampbell]

hey, you missed an opportunity to link to your blog instead of reproducing the post, and increase your traffic there.

That said, I just think there's more competition for these "iconic" images, so while they'll still produced, they'll necessarily be better (harder to getto the top of the heap), and they'll come along just as infrequently.

To wit: you do know there are multiple images of "tank man", right? Some from different angles, some with the tanks in different positions, some a few moments before or after the iconic shot. Those are not iconic, the lasting one is, not because there were fewer photos then, but because it was the best available and truly stands out.

[Rajah Sulayman]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

hey, you missed an opportunity to link to your blog instead of reproducing the post, and increase your traffic there.

Actually the blog is a reproduction of this post than the reverse. I wrote this out here and then realized "Hey, that wouldn't make a bad blog post" and put it there.

Though yeah, it can't hurt to add a link to the post on my blog, even though I imagine much of the discussion would take place here.

[Rajah Sulayman]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

That said, I just think there's more competition for these "iconic" images, so while they'll still produced, they'll necessarily be better (harder to getto the top of the heap), and they'll come along just as infrequently.

That's the thing, though. Have we reached the point where in order to break away from the pack, your image needs to be almost superhumanly good?

Continuing the tank man example (and good move pointing out that it was one of many; I had forgotten about that), in order for Widener's to stand out, it only had to be better than maybe a dozen or so other shots. Today, it'd have to be better than a few hundred.

There was a recent essay/article about there being too many photographers in Haiti, which is a perfect testament to both the ubiquity of photojournalists (due to the much lower barrier-to-entry than ever before) and their reach (due to international travel being so much cheaper). Simply put, there are so many shooters out there producing such stellar work, the requisite skill needed to stand apart from them seems almost unattainable.

Has the pond gotten so big that almost no fish could ever stand out?

[dakwegmo]

I don't think we've seen the last iconic image. With the quality and quantity of images being produced today, I think there are a lot of great images being made everyday. Because of that, it'll be harder for any one image to set itself that far apart from the crowd, but outstanding photos will continue to be made. They may be more rare, the two that you give as examples were published about five years apart, but they will still be there. Who makes those images may be radically different than who used to make them, but they will still be made.

And as an aside regarding BCampbell's comment that you link to your blog. Search engines often penalize websites for posting duplicate content and will often de-list a site if it determines the site is trying to game the system by publishing the same content in multiple places. It's better for both you and DPS to put a summary and a link to the original content than to post it twice.

[Bluenoser]

A few points from me:

1) There will always be those iconic shots, it's just that there's so much more competition producing them now. If there's another Tiananmen type incident (and there will be because that's the world we live in), or another war (see previous bracketed note) then those opportunities will be there. Right now, as stated, there's too many photographers trying to get that image.

2) Following on the too many photographers theme, it's like anything else in this world. Supply and Demand. Twenty years ago, the demand was greater than the supply, for the most part. Now it's the opposite, there's a much greater supply than there is demand. What happens to the product when it saturates the market? The product suffers. Competition is great, but too much can be overkill. So, when the demand becomes so low that photojournalists are practically tripping over each other everywhere they go (which may already be occuring), a lot of them will move on to other fields, or they just won't survive. Like the markets flucuate, so does Supply and Demand. That's not going to change.

3) The whole medium has changed. No longer do you have to wait for Newsweek, Time, or even the local newspaper to see these images. Log on, it'll be there within minutes after it's produced. It's still media though, and no matter that it's so much easier to get media updates now, the demand for it isn't going anywhere. People want to know what's going on, they want to see what's going on in the world around them.


Bottom line imo, there will always be the opportunity for the iconic shot, the opportunities may just be fewer and farther between for a while.

[LeeR]

I often do a bit of research before answering a post like this and on this occasion I ran across a site that lists "52 Influential Photographs." What is interesting is the fact that nearly all of the images are taken by professionals until 1995. The few since then have all been taken by amatuers.
Similarly, the stock photo giant, Getty Images, has recently reached out to photographers on flickr seeking their input. Why should they spend thousands of dollars sending photographers all over the world when the world is sending images to flickr and other sites at a remarkable pace, and many of them are good.
That does not mean there isn't room in the world for another Ansel Adams, Margaret Bourke-White or W. Eugene Smith. These individuals brought powerful and unique visions that compelled an audience to action. The world still needs their kind, though the competition for good jobs will be fierce.

[dakwegmo]

Originally Posted by LeeR

I often do a bit of research before answering a post like this and on this occasion I ran across a site that lists "52 Influential Photographs."

Dear God! Why would you post a link to that site? At the very least it needs a NSFW tag.

[Cam Monroe]

The vast majority of the most iconic images have very little artistic merit.
They are snapshots, taken at the right time, in the right place.
If anything...we should see more iconic images as more people have cameras with them at all times.
Or could it be that; we see what would have been an iconic image 30 years ago, on a daily basis.

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by focalmatter

That's the thing, though. Have we reached the point where in order to break away from the pack, your image needs to be almost superhumanly good?

Continuing the tank man example (and good move pointing out that it was one of many; I had forgotten about that), in order for Widener's to stand out, it only had to be better than maybe a dozen or so other shots. Today, it'd have to be better than a few hundred.

Well, I think maybe you're asking the wrong question.

True, if there were digital cameras back then (and if it were easier to take photos in China at the time -- the story of how those photos even got out is amazing too), there would have been many more images of that moment. It's entirely possible that Widener's wouldn't have been the one we still look at today as one of the most iconic stills of all time.

The real question is, would that be a bad thing?

Widener all but admits that he was lucky to get that frame. With more opportunity, perhaps someone would not have simply gotten lucky; maybe they could have had a better shot. I don't see a problem with that; in fact I think it's a good thing. In the end, this will elevate fields like photojournalism.

I think it is worthwhile to consider whether we're being overloaded. I don't have a ton of respect for what's aptly dubbed the "disaster porn" industry. We don't really have an iconic image of the Haiti earthquake, but I don't think that's because we're oversaturated or because it's an unworthy event. It's just because nobody took an iconic picture, like tank man.

The standards have been raised. I think that's a good thing.

Originally Posted by dakwegmo

And as an aside regarding BCampbell's comment that you link to your blog. Search engines often penalize websites for posting duplicate content and will often de-list a site if it determines the site is trying to game the system by publishing the same content in multiple places. It's better for both you and DPS to put a summary and a link to the original content than to post it twice.

Right, hence why I said "hey, you missed an opportunity to link to your blog instead of reproducing the post, and increase your traffic there." "Instead" is the operative word.

Originally Posted by Cam Monroe

The vast majority of the most iconic images have very little artistic merit.

That depends on what you're talking about, and how you define "artistic" and "merit".

Here we're discussing photojournalism primarily, and it's true that the impact of an excellent journalistic photo usually relies less on traditional artistic techniques. However, by and large, they do have vast amounts of artistic merit, just of a different type than, say, a LaChappelle or Ansel Adams image. It's hard look at the famous afghan girl photo and not see it as an artistically beautiful portrait.

In other fields, there are absolutely iconic photos with artistic merit, however subjective that term may be.

They are snapshots, taken at the right time, in the right place.

You're right, but the implication is that they are just snapshots. To use Widener's tank man photo as an example again, yes he was in the right place at the right time. However that photo also holds some very strong, stunning imagery, and even striking elements on a traditionally artistic scale. There's a reason that photo was chosen over a multitude of others available.

In other words, we have access to more snapshots now than ever, and more of a chance of someone being in the right place at the right time while holding something with a sensor. By your logic, we should have many, many more iconic photos, then.

Or could it be that; we see what would have been an iconic image 30 years ago, on a daily basis.

Are people harder to please these days? Probably. But I think if, say, the photo of Phan Thi Kim Phuc from the vietnam war was taken today, it would stop people in their tracks now just as it did then.

A powerful image is a powerful image. How about Kevin Carter's 1993 photo? Surely we were ramping up to today's image inundation by then. How about the iconic Abu Ghraib photo? Just because photography is more democratic does not mean truly iconic photos will be lost in the noise.