Photojournalism: time of death 11.12. GMT 1st August 2010

[BCampbell]

Editorial Photographers UK | “For God’s sake, somebody call it!�

"Magazines and newspapers are no longer putting any money into photojournalism. They will commission a portrait or two. They might send a photographer off with a writer to illustrate the writer’s story, but they no longer fund photojournalism. They no longer fund photo-reportage. They only fund photo illustration."

[BigVinnie]

I did my own little blog post about that a couple days ago.

Our local regional newspaper lists several staff photographers, but in reading the newspaper it is pretty devoid of staff images. The Friday edition I examined had 4 photos by staff and are clearly the photo illustration type. What I always thought of as the Jimmy Olsen shots.

Newspapers document history. At one time newspapers would send photographers to cover events from start to finish. Now they just use stock photo images or those supplied in press releases.

Newspapers are dying not because of the economy, but their own bad business models.

[OsmosisStudios]

The world of commercial, everyday-newspaper photojournalism might be dying. That I can see. I've looked into going freelance photojournalism but, financially, it just doesnt make sense. Most papers here offer me $50 per image. And no, thats not just "rights" or anything, that's flat out ownership. One of the papers actually turned me away saying they could get their images from online sources (ie Flickr) and another turned me away saying they only work with their stringers.

But for the in-depth hardcore photojournalist on assignment (say, Iraq, or Afghanistan, or some kind of natural disaster), photojournalism is alive, well, and, if anything, stronger than ever. The key issue here, though, isn't that the profession is dying but that those in it are leaving because they dont feel the payoff is worth the effort. Who wants to be stranded in some remote valley in southern Afghanistan, getting shot at and eating MREs, only to be paid very little?

The job isnt dying: newspapers and magazines are.

[BigVinnie]

You might be missing part of the point of the story.

Most of the photojournalists covering conflict areas are freelance. They are there on their own dime and survive by selling images to places like Getty.

What is being lost is the Newspaper & Magazine sponsored shooters. There are only a few of those left. Newspapers especially just pick an image from a stock house because it is cheaper. They don't place much value on original content anymore. Having an exclusive seems to be only important to broadcasters any more.

I think a lot of that may be because video is displacing stills at a pretty rapid pace. Just as TV displaced Radio many years ago.

[Jim Bryant]

A lot of that has to do with the laziness of the reporters not finding stories with guts to them. It's a hell of a lot easier for them to sit around on their asses, facebooking and doing telephone interviews these days. Unfortunately, the photographers have to come up with an interesting photo to illustrate those lame stories. But, we're talking about general news, and business stories, not sports or spot news. Not that I'm defending the photographers of much of the blame should goes to the news, feature and biz editors. Then again, I've known some lazy ass photographers these days too.

[Elmo]

I agree with Jim. But the real issue is determining the difference between illustrations (which is all I ever see being done now) and Photojournalism (Using photographs not words to tell the whole story. ) If you want to see the difference go back to mag's like LOOK and LIFE (Both older editions). National Geographic was a big user of illustrations, not photojournalism.

Photojournalism is hard work. One needs to feel some passion about the subject. He then needs to develop the "script" to tell the story. Then shoot to fit the script. One cannot do that in a few hours, usually not even in days. Some take effort over years. Then one has to sell the story.

[Jim Bryant]

So you want to a photojournalist? Consider it carefully, and reckon the realities. You have to know more and work harder to earn less than in many other professions you might consider. Often you work under pressure to deliver despite personal privation: minimal sleep, fifteen hours between meals, and two days between beds. You need the strength of a packhorse to carry around the camera and computer equipment and must have the resourcefulness, ingenuity, and adaptability to solve assignment logistics; and inventiveness and the ability to improvise to capture the pictures that tell the story.

You have to enjoy being by yourself if you are to cope with the long hours surrounded by strangers in remote places. You also have to believe in the importance of what you do and how it affects your community and the world.

What do you expect from being a photojournalist? Money, fame, glamour, globetrotting, ego satisfaction? It it’s money you want, photojournalism is not where you’ll find it. It’s not a lucrative business. But commercial, advertising, corporate and fashion photography are much more high paying.

There are moments of glamour and periods of fame for many photojournalists. But most of the time, fame and glamour are just lights at the end of the tunnel. The day-to-day work is physically tough, psychologically stressful and intellectually demanding.

Only love of photojournalism can provide the drive to keep you shooting effectively toward the end of an exhausting 16 hour-long day. It is love that forces you to wade a muddy ditch with cameras held high overhead, hoping the angle will be better from the other side. And when the thrill of being published subsides, and the realization sets in that the big bucks are in advertising, it is only love that can cushion the letdown. And the knowledge that somehow some way, you are taking pictures that matter.

[OsmosisStudios]

Big Vinnie: I think you missed the point of my post entirely. Its not photojournalism that's dying (as evidenced by the many freelancers out there). It's the companies that are buying these photos that are dying. The magazines, the newspapers, etc. Print is dying. Even online news sites are relying more and more heavily on online content they can get for free because the rest of the company is in the can.

[BCampbell]

Os, I agree with Vinnie. Read the article again.

Your point is of course valid. Newspapers and magazines are in decline. But, whether or not they are are dying, they are not comissioning the kind of deep photojournalistic stories they used to, and they haven't been for a long time. Without journalistic outlets, it's not photojournalism anymore.

Now sure, an individual can self-finance a project and later sell it around. However, that's not photojournalism anymore. When journalistic outlets stopped sending photographers out on photojournalistic assignments, that's when photojournalism started dying. And that happened much earlier than the decline of journalistic media we see today.