|Museum of Modern Art project|
How is documentary photography different from photojournalism?
It is not clear in my mind why this article should exist as a distinct page from photojournalism.Fishdecoy 00:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we merge this article (and the two others linked in the "Photographer" article) with Photographer. All four articles are stubs, combining them would solve the problem for all four articles.
Christophore 11:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I dont think this should be merged. They are two different topics.
Photography: street photography, documentary photography, photojournalist each is distinct, and there are other categories of photography as well. Super8Guy 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Super8Guy
Documentary Photojournalists (Reportage Photographers for the English) is different from straight Photojournalism. It is most commonly used in weddings using sequences of images rather than one image to tell a story and is definitely it's own category. Myraedison 03:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
needs more detail in the article, not a merge
Documentary photography is a huge category, it is a vast part of photography and just needs someone to properly write it.
There is a difference between documenting an event for journalistic reasons, and for reasons of meaning, rhetoric, artistic etc
Deformat 16:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. No merge. I'm actually surprised this merge was proposed by a photographer, who apparently was only objecting to the fact that none of us have adequately written entries for the different branches of photography. But obviously documentary photography has a separate and very important history from commercial or fashion photography - in fact those two are even closer together. I would even hesitate to merge documentary photography with photojournalism. I would however recommend we redirect from Documentary Photography to Documentary photography. Bruxism 07:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Do not merge. They are not the same thing.
I say we just do what happened to technology for japan
Leave Documentary photography alone and add a new topic in photography that says something quick about it like with the wiki for Japan they have a topic for technology that is shorter than the wiki for Japan's technology
Wiki of: Japan
Topic: Science and technology of Japan
Main article: Science and technology in Japan Japan is a leading nation in the fields of scientific research, technology . . .
I personally consider myself a photojournalist and a documentary photographer and I disagree with every aspect of this article. What this article is describing, to me, is a photojournalist, by saying that documentary photography is usually of people, and is usually for print, is describing a photojournalist. At the core Photojournalism is photography to represent a newsworthy event, person, etc. while documentary photography is just documenting something, it's taking a photograph of something in it's natural state. I would personally rewrite most of this article but I don't want to totally blank and rewrite a page without seeing if others agree with my definition. SyBerWoLff 19:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agree as far as the definition is concerned. Many documentary photographs were never intended for media publication. (Forensic photography is a subgenre of DP and is a good example.) GregorB (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that the sole contemporary documentary photographer focus on Manuel Rivera-Ortiz screams of self-promotion? His work isn't nearly as notable as it's made out to be. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)