Talk:Photojournalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject History of photography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of History of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Journalism (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Writing Style[edit]

A quick read through the article turns up phrases like:

"is albums were sent to European royals houses. Just a few of his photography survived. The next ones were British press reporters"

This has fairly bad grammar and incorrect words (photography instead of photographs) and doesn't seem very professional. Author or regular editors should maybe do a sweep through the article and fix these details? Nano Dan (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Awesome[edit]

I think that this article is awsome!! --142.167.95.134 17:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)Dianna--142.167.95.134 17:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List[edit]

  • List of photojournalists (Category) maybe? Feydey 16:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Learning[edit]

I am learning about photography and i think this page is awesome!!!

This page is so cool and informative. I just love it and it helps me with my advisory class. thank you wikipedia. your new best visitor.


Some notable fictional photojournalists[edit]

I reverted this addition (which was just one entry -- Frank West from the video game Dead Rising) today because I think this article should be factual in nature and deal with real photojournalism and not fictional. I found the diversion to fictionalism to be off topic for this article. If other editors think otherwise, please post your comments here for discussion. SteveHopson 17:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with listing the fictionals at the very bottom and clearly denoted as such. I'd probably title it 'Photojournalists in Fiction', and the ones I might add, L.B. "Jeff" Jeffries, Chuck Allen and Peter Parker (of 'Rear Window', and 'Brenda Starr' and 'Spiderman', respectively) mostly represent a reflection and personification of the "golden age". One should also consider whether, if there were ever an article on fictional photojournalists, whether we'd argue that that article should be combined with this one ;-) KevinCuddeback 18:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I think it is important to note fictional photojounalists. It shows that the field is well-respected, and is a catagory worth it's set of tales. And as said, I made the section completely at the bottom of the article so it wouldn't distract from the article. And their are plenty of fictional photojouranalists, but the one that came to my mind was Frank West seeing as I am currently enjoying the game. And, Peter Parker (Spider-man) is also worth note. :D Smile Lee 05:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(i) If this article's coverage of real-world photojournalists doesn't manage to convey their importance, this article will have failed. (ii) How is representation in fiction evidence that a field is well-respected? (Is Humbert Humbert evidence that pedophilia is well-respected?) (ii) The ludicrously prolix article on Spider-Man (to which Peter Parker redirects) hardly mentions his photography, which seems merely a minor plot device. -- Hoary 02:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable Photojournalists[edit]

This list is getting too long to maintain within this article. As new entries are added, it losses its meaning within the context of the article as highlighting the few photojournalists who represent the profession and is quickly becoming a vanity list. For now, I'm removing the photojournalists without Wiki articles as non-notable. In the future, if the list keeps growing, it should become a separate article.

Below are the names removed today, the ones that are truly notable should have articles started about them. SteveHopson 01:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the thrust of what you're saying, Steve. Just one quibble: Eugene Richards is a photographer who richly deserves the degree of attention characteristically paid in W'pedia to such dubious photographers as Frank West, and if he's at all representative as the others in the list (among whom only two names are vaguely familiar to me), they're not at all non-notable. Though, as I've said, you were right to remove the whole lot. -- Hoary 02:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree about Richards and, perhaps, other unknown to me. I would encourage editors with an interest to start articles on the notable photojournalists that I removed. SteveHopson 03:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing strikes me as superfluous. I pulled it. Here's the latest version:

I don't question that most (all?) of these are notable photojournalists. (I'm very familiar with the work of some of them, hugely more interesting to me than the work of news photographers with monster lenses covering sports events.) This doesn't mean that a list, even a whittled down list, is helpful in this article. -- Hoary 14:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, the list has overtaken the article. In addition, we have a separate article for this purpose, List of photojournalists. At the time I wrote my comments above, I did not know of this List article. I've now added a reference to the List to this article. SteveHopson 14:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What is photojournalism, anyway?[edit]

We read (after markup-stripping):

Photojournalism is distinguished from other close branches of photography (such as documentary photography, street photography or celebrity photography) by the qualities of:
  • Timeliness — the images have meaning in the context of a published chronological record of events.
  • Objectivity — the situation implied by the images is a fair and accurate representation of the events they depict.
  • Narrative — the images combine with other news elements, to inform and give insight to the viewer or reader.

Perhaps photojournalism differs from any of the others in that it has (or purports to have, or should have) all three. But I wonder. Just one example: If Smith was a photojournalist, one of his greatest achievements was Minamata; this may be fair and accurate, but it's hardly "objective". It doesn't even pretend to be: aside from its other qualities (which are considerable), it's a blazing indictment of corporate evil and of callousness and gross negligence by others. But I suppose you can say that here he wasn't being a PJ but instead was creating a documentary.

Also, I wonder about the banal mass of photos that appear in the press, neatly exemplified in this article by the shot of so-called photojournalists crowding around a "starlet" at Cannes. How does the result "inform and give insight to the viewer or reader"? If the reader is a febrile 16-year-old male, I see how it might give him a boner, and I see how it might increase sales of the magazine, and that's about it. At the non-titillatory extreme, no information or insight is imparted (to me, anyway) by the endless procession of photos of dignitaries sitting next to each other in armchairs, or shaking hands in corridors.

No solutions or even suggestions quite yet, just a venting of miscellaneous feelings of unease about this article. -- Hoary 02:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

One other small problem here.

This whole passage it is very nearly a direct quote from an article written in 1986, however some small changes to the verbiage has been made (The original is by far more grammatically correct) Myraedison 04:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest adding to the qualities that characterise PJ the additional quality of

  • "Significance" - the events depicted are newsworthy and have widespread interest.

I expect this wording could be improved. But the intention is to exclude "starlets at Cannes" and children washing their dogs and so on. Perhaps an actor receiving an award could be considered significant. Rodney Topor (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

FSA[edit]

We read:

Whether [FSA photography] can be called "photojournalism" is debatable, since the FSA photographers had more time and resources to create their work than most photojournalists usually have.

Let's keep it simple. Was a primary intention of this work that it should be displayed in newspapers or magazines? If so, surely it's photojournalism. If not, what other reason is there to call it photojournalism? -- Hoary 14:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I always think of FSA as pure documentary photography, not photojournalism. The Wiki article (which, IMHO, should really be split off from the FSA article into its own article) says this, "The Information Division of the FSA was responsible for providing educational materials and press information to the public. Under Roy Stryker, the Information Division of the FSA adopted a goal of "introducing America to Americans."" So the FSA program considered that it was documenting the conditions and then presenting the photos in both educational materials and in the press. Since photojournalism was well established at the time of FSA, why would the federal government see the need to supply more photos to the press? Obviously the primary purpose of the project is to document conditions not reported in the press. For this reason, I think FSA is primarily a documentation project and should only be briefly mentioned in this article. SteveHopson 15:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, but the OxCompPhoto does seem to take PJ to include topical photographs for documentary purposes, regardless of an journalistic or similar intent. I'll have to think more about this. -- Hoary 00:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable photos in the history of photojournalism[edit]

This section was removed which I agree with but I think the article should mention specific photos which have had a significant impact both on photojournalism and society as a whole. For example "Execution of Nguyen Van Lem" by Eddie Adams had a major impact on American public support for the Vietnam war. I originally put "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" by Joe Rosenthal and "The Falling Man" by Richard Drew in the list as these both had significant impacts on the public as well. It doesn't have to be these three photos but I think there should be some mention of specific photos. Isn't there a famous photo of a woman in a petrol station who finds her dead husband and son after they've been killed by an exploding tyre?--Moonlight Mile 22:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Moonlight. It would be great to give some names of great photojournalists as well as their photos in the "History" section. I know there would always be dispute over who and what is considered as "great", but I think the entry could be improved by suggesting some names to laymen who would like to explore more on this topic.--Mar9 02:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How to create an article?[edit]

I'd like to create an article on Philip Jones Griffiths but I don't want it to become a little orphan - how do I ensure it gets linked to other articles? PiCo 09:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Why, by linking it to and from other articles! Sorry, I'm in a rush now, so can't show you by example. But in one browser window, look for other photojournalists who might have articles and see their links and also (using an option that's probably to the left of the screen) what links to them: this should inspire you to use another browser window to link to and from your new article, which I see already exists.
NB I also notice that the new article makes some seemingly controversial claims. For all I know, they may very well all be uncontroversially true, but you should back them up with sources wherever possible. The article on photojournalism is not (yet) a good model for this; see for example Felice Beato to see how to do it well. Don't worry if you can't get it quite right to start with; do your best and later I or somebody else will pop by to do a little clearing up. -- Hoary 11:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Please let me know what you regard as controversial. PiCo 12:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Photojournalism for the young (?)[edit]

I've just now removed:

Photojournalism in Video games
In the Xbox 360 game titled 'Dead Rising' the main character who the player takes the role of is a photojournalist in a mall who is taking photos of a zombie infestation.

This strikes me as the kind of thing that's supremely uninteresting to people who want to find out about photojournalism. But perhaps I grievously underestimate the significance of appearances in video games and the importance of describing these appearances. Comments welcome. -- Hoary 10:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo of photojournalists[edit]

I've just now removed the picture and caption that (if your browser supports CSS and unless you've done something imaginative to the CSS) appears on the right.

Sports photojournalists at Indianapolis Motor Speedway

This shows sports photographers, all pointing cameras with long lenses in the direction of a scheduled and no doubt heavily promoted commercial spectacle. What these photographers are doing is certainly photojournalism of a sort. But it seems to me a peculiarly humdrum kind of photojournalism, at odds with what's described in the article and what's of most interest beyond the short term. It therefore seemed unsuitable. But perhaps I was too hasty. Comments welcome. -- Hoary 10:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Humdrum" in comparison to the genre's highest expressions, no doubt, but this is a HUGE segment of the work involved in the life of most photojournalists, and I would suggest that a cluster of "long lenses" is an iconic representation of the profession for many people. You see the same thing at a Presidential press conference and the Olympics; are those commercial spectacles?
I suggest restoring it until someone provides something better, but I'll leave that to someone else, since it's my photo and I don't want to make a spectacle of myself. ;-)
Rdikeman 16:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it illustrates the article and would 'vote' in favor of restoration. If someone can provide a photo that better illustrates the mainstream of photojournalism, this photo could always be put in a separate section on sports photoj. TheMindsEye 17:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
This picture is very representative of sports photographers. And sports photography is indeed photojournalism. Ericd 00:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You see the same thing at a Presidential press conference and the Olympics; are those commercial spectacles? -- The former: they were, but the great American public no longer seems to be buying it. The latter: yes of course!
To me, a iconic representation of the profession of photojournalism would be one of somebody like James Nachtwey popping up to take a photo or two between rounds of gunfire.
But yes, the huge majority of photographed news consists of staged spectacles such as car races: advertising jamborees for booze and fags, the last time I heard. (By which I don't mean to imply that what goes on within the spectacles is fixed, though of course Freakonomics lucidly explains how a lot of sumo matches are indeed fixed.) -- Hoary 00:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a great shot, just one thing: can we not have a slightly bigger version? Gets my restoration vote either way, per comments above. A shot of the other "common" photojournalist, the lone cameraman, would just be a shot of some guy with a camera, not very enc at all. Even it was Robert Capa.. mikaultalk 00:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

When there is a photographer popping up to take a photo or two between rounds of gunfire, most of the time there is no other photographer around. And when there is one, he is probably not shooting the first photographer ;-) Ericd 08:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

When the worlds dies so do you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.157.146.194 (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


OMG this is a GREAT website for school projects...PJ is basically taking pictures and putting them into a story or something like that!!!:) :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.75.169.209 (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Brief Article[edit]

I am new here however not new to the subject, I was a correspondent in Vietnam and have been a journalist since 1959 (though not a "notable" one.

Here is an interesting article giving practical advice to photojournalists: Photojournalism: Shooting Under Stress. by a rather interesting photojournalist. He is a well respected photojournalist and the information he provides in brief is unique and pertinent for a myriad of reasons and I believe a link should be included to this article.

One little known fact about this photographer is that he made his living from 1980 until about 1995 by covering conflicts all over the globe including The Falklands, Lebanon, Panama, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Uganda and Croatia by selling images to other photojournalists who are still taking credit for shooting the images. Moyopic (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The photographer is Daniel Colegrove (the Wikipedia article about whom has been deleted). The article is indeed interesting, but it's a howto, and so doesn't really belong here. -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article[edit]

This article is featured and very, very complete in the Wikipedia in spanish. Check it out.

--190.90.107.2 (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo politics[edit]

If the article ever becomes more detailed, it should maybe address the phenomenon of photo politics, where photojournalism eventually becomes manipulated for political or ideological purposes, especially when some photographies are alleged to have a hidden or cryptic message. ADM (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Genre?[edit]

What genre of type would be of a website that contrains photographs related to current events or news? Saqib talk 12:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqib Qayyum (talkcontribs)

Further Reading[edit]

I wanted to suggest adding a book to the Further Reading section. I wrote a paper on photojournalism during the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. and found The Race Beat: The Press, the Civil Rights Struggle, and the Awakening of a Nation by Gene Roberts and Hank Klibanoff to be both helpful and entertaining. Unfortunately the Wiki page for the book is not the most helpful, but here it is: The Race Beat

Aacarrie (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

decline/evolution of the profession[edit]

I just added one reference from dpreview.com regarding the decline of still-photo journalist as a career and its evolution to focus on video. We need more information in the article on the impact of recent technologies, including the broader macroeconomic trends in the media (eg Newsweek going to online-only format, decline in print media sales, etc). (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Why all these illustrations?[edit]

In its current version, the article Photojournalism comes with four photographs. The third, fourth and fifth -- by Dorothea Lange, Eddie Adams (though uncredited) and Richard Drew -- are well known and their significance is clearly explained in the caption. The second, by Robert F. Sargent, is much less known but its importance is explained (and, once explained, obvious). The first, however, is rather a contrast. It's captioned "Nomad woman inside her house,Morocco". A journalistic angle may be there, but if so it's not explained. (Yes, I do appreciate "slow journalism", but I'm not going to simply presume that it exists.) The page of this image at Commons says that it's by Commons:User:Dmitri1999, and also that http://www.dmitrimarkine.com is to be credited. Click this and you're given a wedding photo and the choice between two websites (or two versions of a website). I clicked the one for computers and was given a black screen, under the title Dmitri Markine | Best Toronto Celebrity Wedding Photographer. The page seems to be some Flash concoction, so I'll ignore it, but the description given in a META tag is: Unique and artistic wedding photography for those who want the absolute best for their wedding event. Canada,USA and the world.

Who is Commons:User:Dmitri1999? He tells us: Dmitri Markine is a Canadian photojournalist and a wedding photographer. In 2009 was named one of the Top 10 Wedding photographers in Canada. And: Feature(5 best Canadian wedding photographers) Honorable mention multiple 1st,2nd and 3rd places and 20 awards of excellence Press Release 3rd and 4th places nominee Photolife Feature Featured as one of top 10 wedding photographers in Canada nominee nominee nominee National Geographic's Best Photographs of 2007 nominee Gold Award; 2nd place Best of the Best wedding photographs 2010 Best of The Best Wedding Images 2011 National Geographic Editors Choice 2011(3 images).

Who put the image in this article (and in top position)? User:Dmitri1999 did. Dmitri1999 (whose user page here is similar to that at Commons) has been active in adding images to articles, e.g. here, in which he adds a curious wedding-related photograph (the one from the top of dmitrimarkine.com) to the article on Havana. In the history of the article Photographer, he seems to have got into a bit of an argument with other editors. There's no self promotion, he writes in one edit summary. I don't need it...

Dmitri1999 may not need self-promotion, but I find it hard to believe that self-promotion is not a major factor. I propose to delete his image from this article as unneeded and improperly conspicuous. Any reason why I should hesitate? -- Hoary (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Antique RoseDrop me a line 11:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
See [1] - he's leaving. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Eddie Adams photo[edit]

User:Alvesgaspar readds a photo by Eddie Adams, saying Undid revision 535956001 by Nick-D (talk) No need to refer to images in the articles. License is also ok, as far as we know. This is an iconic image!

Well well. The license is . . . none. This is instead a conventionally copyright photo. It is neither in the public domain nor copylefted. It can only be used via "fair use". One necessity for "fair use" within this article is a rationale in File:Nguyen.jpg for its fair use within the article. Are you planning to provide one? -- Hoary (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. We don't add copyright material to articles hoping that it's really ok. This is explicitly a copyright article. The only Fair Use rationale is for Eddie Adamn's article. Anyone replacing it without an acceptable Fair Use rationale is adding copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)