The Decisive Moment, R.I.P?

Can you hear that faint rumbling noise? That's Multimedia Journalism, especially in newspaper publishing, grindin' its way towards photographers like a sub-tectonic plate re-alignment.

Soon it'll create a tsunami.

The issue of photographers being asked to shoot video and stills came up in a conversation I had with a wire service friend of mine about a year ago. Already he was hearing rumours of change.

That issue is addressed in a recent quote from Richard Koci Hernandez, a photographer and multimedia journalist with the San Jose Mercury newspaper in California.

Richard says worrying about whether to use a video or stills camera on a story is no longer an issue.

You just carry a Hi-Definition video camera. The resolution of stills you grab from Hi-Def video is more than adequate for use in print newspapers, (and obviously the Web)...the Mercury already uses them.

He says:

"With high-definition video, you can literally take the feed and go frame-by-frame and pick whatever still you want. Don't gasp -- I know that's horrible for still photographers! And you feel dirty doing it. You always get the ball in the right spot. You always get the person walking through the light at the right moment. It does feel dirty."

The implications of that quote should be clear to most.

Whether this foreshadows de-skilling, or makes photographers redundant (in both terms of the word) is up to your interpretation. I know from what little recent experience I've had, that shooting video requires a huge range of new skills to take on board...at least if you don't want it to look like home movie crap.

In recent years, photographers (including myself) have failed in the most part to keep up to speed with the seismic changes brought about by digital technology.

Most of them still think it stops at knowing what dpi and colour profile to use, and a lot still don't even know that. Consequently, you don't need me to tell you that many of us are now looking around, wondering who pulled the rug out from under us editorially and financially, as the way we produced pictures, how they were seen, bought and sold was completely restructured from the ground up, while we mostly stood by, or rolled over and surrendered our autonomy.

The next wave of internet development (known to geeks as 'Web 2.0') is set to make those recent changes look mild in comparison, and will restructure the entire medium and distribution systems in which we work yet again, in ways that havent even happened fully yet, but which already make my head hurt.

It remains up to us to decide how we react to those changes. We didnt react fast enough last time.

But if the tsunami is coming again, it makes sense this time, to start building your boat.

Comments

[Daniel]

Agreed, it's all changing now but i still dont think the technology is upto the task yet.

I have the mentioned sony HDTV camera you linked to and damn it needs to be treated with a softer touch than most.
One of the benefits of the tools currently available to PJ's is that the camera's are generally bomb proof (1d mkIIn, leica) and work no matter what.

But when it comes to the HDTV kit, it would just fall over in a small sandstorm or even if it rained a little bit.

Though i can see a PJ friendly version coming out soon, with optional kevlar handle and teflon covering :0)

[Sion]

Unfortunately Daniel, like a lot of photographers, you're assuming it all boils down to the the kit. It doesnt, and that's not what I'm talking about. It's about the infrastructure of photojournalism. The Z1 is a sexy, but fragile beast - but consumer DV video cameras and mobile phones aren't...and even if they are, they're cheap as chips - chuck 'em away and get another.

It's the way the money men approach the business which matters in the end, and the way in which digital technology has largely disenfranchised us, because we let it happen by not grasping its full implications - we were all too busy cooing over Canon 1Ds Mk2's...and wondering how come we couldn't afford one.

When photographers started using digital stills cameras, they all thought it would mean we could spend more time taking pictures because we didn't have to waste time developing the film.

Fat chance! What it meant was we're now expected to cram more work into the same day rate/ shift AND we've failed to pass over our 'digital darkroom' costs (the computer, the camera, the software, all which needs upgrading, the time taken to process and prep digital files etc) to our clients. They think it's cost free - because WE allowed them to think that.

As a consequence, day-rates have plummeted or stayed frozen and copyright abuse of our work is rampant - again, because we've failed to grasp metadata issues and digital licensing. The level of ignorance about this vital side of our business is simply staggering.

As for Leicas...you can make a convincing argument that Magnum Photos has lost it's pre-eminent rank in the 'Photojournalism Premier League' because they still use those things, and are challenged daily by other agencies which embraced digital technology earlier.

Only now are they beginning to wise up with their 'Magnum in Motion' site.

Read the whole article which contains the Richard Koci Hernandez quote, and read the Dennis Dunleavy article too. They're both saying similar things, which is:

We either let the managers turn us all into overworked digital video screengrab monkeys....because it costs them less....or we start upskilling ourselves and get with the program before they do.

Or better still, leave the beancounters behind, because their dayrates are a joke and the Web has potential to cut them out altogether and reach the audience directly.

[Patrick Yen]

Great post Sion.

The fact of the matter is that being able to gather and edit still and motion photography requires more skills. Having more skills gets you more jobs and better pay.

This multimedia chaos has effectively afforded the best photojournalists to rise above the mediocre in a job market which has become oversaturated and underpriced.

When syndication hits, I believe independent multimedia journalists will be able to make money based more on the merit and quality of their work without having to go through agencies as much.

For example, you spend two days producing a story, it's so good that 1000 news websites will pay you $5-$10 to be able to syndicate your story on their site. You've just made a day rate of $2500-$5000 instead of $500-$1000.

All this coming from a student who has never made one cent off of any of the news stories he has published online.

Shi-blang blang

[Sergio Alberti]

Well, building a boat is the most inteligent thing to do as the message is pretty clear. And to be sincere it doesn't surprise me video would take over even on still images.
Most important than buying a HD-Cam is to learn the language of video shoting. Well, at least it would be a good step for those who want to survive on the visual communication.
Hugs Sion and keep on with the cutting edge blog!!!

[Sean Parsons]

Hi Sion,

Interesting post mate.
On reflection, do you feel the training that you've done at the BBC and PA has gone some way in preparing you for change or did it feel like you were scratching the surface of something that's going to take alot more time and effort?

[Sion]

Technically they both helped a great deal to get me up to speed with the way the cameras work, using non-linear editing software etc. Of course it also made it very clear how much there is yet to learn. Looking back on some stories I've done in the past however, I can't help thinking some of them would have been better done on video. For example, by interviewing people on video, the work becomes more of a collaborative democratic effort, as opposed to the 'auteurs view' of an event which is often the angle a lot of photojournalists take. I've been uncomfortable with that idea for some time and some of my earlier postings have argued that concentrating too much on the photographer, and not the subject, has damaged photojournalism and alienated our audience. I'm not saying video is the answer, but it is something interesting to be explored, which was my original intention.

[Chris Harley]

Great to hear more views on this subject, as have been trying to keep a breast of this subject in other journo sities, but with not as much detail as this!

Having qualified with an Hnd in Photography back in the mid 90s, and was informed by our Video tutor that stills would be over-taken by
video (as he himself freelanced for Sky!).

His exact comment back then was that we (as stills Photographers) would all one day become vid jockey's.
Like the TV coverage at major sports or news events, were an editor could instantly
ask for different view or angle to be taken by a particular camera
so that the actual decisions, would not be taken be the people
on the ground!
This now seems more true as we head down this slippery slope.
I myself used to work in the newspaper feild, which now almost want you to pay them to work for them!

[Sion Touhig]

Hi Chris,

If you havebnt read it already, read my more recent post about the 'death of newspaper photojournalism' and if you'd like more info, Richard Koci Hernandez's blog www.multimediashooter.com is a mine of great stuff.