What is PJ?

torags

OK things are getting quiet here. We have to keep BD's gray matter on the boil.

So what is photo journalism?

Seems to me in it's simplest form, it is text and photos. So for this example let's call it a piece.

So what drives the piece?

Is it the text embellished with pictures ( as in the SF Chronicle reporters using P&S cams for their stories) or

is it the pictures that are embellished with text (like a National Geographic piece).

Is either or is both photo journalism and is people a condition for the terminology?

Cygnus Studios

To me it is an image that tells the story. The text gives the image context, but not taking away from the story.

An image of a family standing outside of their burnt home tells the complete story. No amount of text would catch that moment like the image.

Most images that I have seen in National Geographic are not in the same category. Their images add to the text instead of the other way around.

D'Buggs

IMO one can't 'be' without the other.... Someone standing in front of a pile of burnt rubble, is just that - Someone and burned rubble.


We need the story for complete understanding of the happenings. without both, we're left guessing and making assumtions.

bdcolen

D'Buggs wrote:

IMO one can't 'be' without the other.... Someone standing in front of a pile of burnt rubble, is just that - Someone and burned rubble.


We need the story for complete understanding of the happenings. without both, we're left guessing and making assumtions.

Sorry to be late...:-)

In this case definitions are pretty loosey goosey. I see "photo journalism" as generally being photography used for illustrative purposes, while I see documentary photography as involving more of an investment of time, often months if not years. Photo journalism - by and large - is what we get in our daily newspapers: go to the fire, take photos of the fire, get ids of all the people, go back to the paper, the editor selects the most dramatic photo, editor writes a caption from the photographer's information, and it runs with the story of the fire - or alone. The photo may or may not tell a story on its own.

The old weekly magazines - LIFE, Look, the old Saturday Evening Post, Colliers, blurred the line between photo journalism and documentary photography with some of their picture stories. But in most cases, there was still text illustrated with photos.

Prior to the ascendancy of the internet, most documentary photography ended up in photo books, and the books usually did/do not have text, other than a forward or afterward. Think of the work of Eugene Richard, Susan Maiselas, Mary Ellen Mark. The photos tell the story.

BUT - there are exceptions to all of this, and there are no real hard and fast definitions. And any single photo can tell a story.

Flutist

I have to saw that I've seen a lot of photos and discussions about this, and B.D. may not like my take on it. However, I've taken everything I've read and seen in photos, and simplified the definition for my own purposes. While it most definitely is text and photos, there is that loosey goosey end of it, that I've chosen to define as follows:



Any picture or series of photos that tell a story, with or without words..

bdcolen

Flutist wrote:

I have to saw that I've seen a lot of photos and discussions about this, and B.D. may not like my take on it. However, I've taken everything I've read and seen in photos, and simplified the definition for my own purposes. While it most definitely is text and photos, there is that loosey goosey end of it, that I've chosen to define as follows:



Any picture or series of photos that tell a story, with or without words..

Well, that's certainly reducing it to the most basic of levels...

Flutist

bdcolen wrote:

Well, that's certainly reducing it to the most basic of levels...

I'm all for simplifying what has been made complicated....if we all went back to basics imagine how smoothly some things would run!

sweet caroline

I tend to think of photojournalism as taking photos without influencing the scene. Okay, it may be impossible to exist without influencing the scene in some way, but I think that should be the goal. Capture the scene/event as it is, including trying to capture the story and feeling.

Caroline

cmason

Even simpler to me, is what PJ is not: PJ distinctly is NOT poses and portraits of people. PJ to me is catching individuals in their 'real' environment, being themselves, vs a posed, scripted portrait.

At least that is how I think of the differences.

bdcolen

cmason wrote:

Even simpler to me, is what PJ is not: PJ distinctly is NOT poses and portraits of people. PJ to me is catching individuals in their 'real' environment, being themselves, vs a posed, scripted portrait.

At least that is how I think of the differences.

Why do I think this is going to go on for months?.. But...
Caroline write:

"I tend to think of photojournalism as taking photos without influencing the scene. Okay, it may be impossible to exist without influencing the scene in some way, but I think that should be the goal. Capture the scene/event as it is, including trying to capture the story and feeling."

Sure, photo journalists try not to influence the scene, but if you've ever been in a public place with newspaper photographers around, you know that their very presence often alters the scene. Think of how demonstrators, rioters, etc., play to the camera. Have you ever thought about how odd it is that demonstrators on the street in Tehran, or a Latin American country often carry signs in English?

bdcolen

cmason wrote:

Even simpler to me, is what PJ is not: PJ distinctly is NOT poses and portraits of people. PJ to me is catching individuals in their 'real' environment, being themselves, vs a posed, scripted portrait.

At least that is how I think of the differences.

Ooops....And as to not posing and portraits...go look at your daily paper, whatever it is, and tell me that photo journalism doesn't involve shooting portraits, and that those portraits aren't posed...

D'Buggs

bdcolen wrote:

Ooops....And as to not posing and portraits...go look at your daily paper, whatever it is, and tell me that photo journalism doesn't involve shooting portraits, and that those portraits aren't posed...

Agreed.
Can it then be said that mainstream PJ "looks" for percieved/created reality then?


FWIW - If I read something in the news, I tend to take it with a HUGE grain of salt, due to real experiences of "made up" factuals.... Trust no one. Expect nothing... Never be disappointed! Photo's that support a stories facts, that are bunk, are bunk too (in this context). I'm at the point of believing that Hollywood can/does better at PJ than that of mainstream, as of late.


Sad; yes.
But true, none-the-less.

mercphoto

bdcolen wrote:

Ooops....And as to not posing and portraits...go look at your daily paper, whatever it is, and tell me that photo journalism doesn't involve shooting portraits, and that those portraits aren't posed...

But I would not call that photojournalism. Not everything in a newspaper is journalism. The opinion/editorial page being a classic example of that.

bdcolen

mercphoto wrote:

But I would not call that photojournalism. Not everything in a newspaper is journalism. The opinion/editorial page being a classic example of that.

It is, by definition, journalism. Columns are a form of journalism; editorials are a form of journalism; criticism is a form of journalism; and all are opinion-based.

jeffreaux2

An "educated" snapshot.

torags

bdcolen wrote:

It is, by definition, journalism. Columns are a form of journalism; editorials are a form of journalism; criticism is a form of journalism; and all are opinion-based.

Yup....

NeilL

Photojournalism is what people produce and what people buy when they want photojournalism.

I say, don't look at the bought-and-sold end product - it varies out of hand. Instead, ask the producer and the buyer why they do what they do. I think there's more commonality in the motivation.

For me, my reason why, photojournalism is like earthing, touching base, ground zero. I want to contact where the original energy exploded and spread from, the source of the issue, horse's mouth. Whatever gives me that with pictures is photojournalism.

Does anyone differ?

Neil

michswiss

NeilL wrote:

Photojournalism is what people produce and what people buy when they want photojournalism.
...

Neil

For me, your opening comment is a restatement of one tenant of language. That the agreement of context defines meaning. Which leads me to the remainder of your post. You've just given a contextual definition of photojournalism for yourself. I think I can agree with your version, and can certainly appreciate and understand it. The result is you and I can have a discussion about PJ and not what PJ means.

Now I just need to figure out your other posts.

NeilL

michswiss wrote:

... a discussion about PJ and ( ) what PJ means.

Is there a difference?

torags

I agree with BD's definition of journalism. Previous posters have given passionate opinions on core journalism value.

So... what about fill.... Stories printed in newspapers to fill empty column space (with file photos).

Less about current news and written by self serving public relations firms. A hybrid form of information/advertising. Elements of Parade Magazine comes to mind with a sprinkle of People Mag effect.

Michswiss I really like this,"That the agreement of context defines meaning." Thanks, that goes a long way towards the emotional response to an image.

Rags

michswiss

NeilL wrote:

Is there a difference?

Maybe another way of stating it is that I'm happy with your definition and as a result you and I can discuss the work of photographers that say their work is PJ. If the community consensus moves and the terminology remains the same, it doesn't stop you and I from using another term to still have the same conversation based on our shared view.

NeilL

michswiss wrote:

Maybe another way of stating it is that I'm happy with your definition and as a result you and I can discuss the work of photographers that say their work is PJ. If the community consensus moves and the terminology remains the same, it doesn't stop you and I from using another term to still have the same conversation based on our shared view.

Well, we might agree that what we both call PJ is "what does it for us" (the things I mentioned before), while disagreeing about particular candidates for the term. So, what we call PJ survives particularities. The commonality is resilient while the particulars might not line up. That's a "meaning", I think. We might agree that "door" means a closable opening to another space allowing egress and ingress, but we might not agree that a trapdoor is a door. We could discuss that point without damage to our agreement about the meaning of door.

So we can discuss whether something is PJ or not without touching our agreement about the meaning of PJ. The consensus would not move, but what it refers to could change.

I think this is the opposite to what you are saying (?)

torags

Wow this is really getting cranial...

NeilL

torags wrote:

Wow this is really getting cranial...

triple cranial :D:D

michswiss

torags wrote:

Wow this is really getting cranial...

"If I only had a brain"

Please ignore the woman behind the curtain.

torags

NeilL wrote:

Well, we might agree that what we both call PJ is "what does it for us" (the things I mentioned before), while disagreeing about particular candidates for the term. So, what we call PJ survives particularities. The commonality is resilient while the particulars might not line up. That's a "meaning", I think. We might agree that "door" means a closable opening to another space allowing egress and ingress, but we might not agree that a trapdoor is a door. We could discuss that point without damage to our agreement about the meaning of door.

So we can discuss whether something is PJ or not without touching our agreement about the meaning of PJ. The consensus would not move, but what it refers to could change.

I think this is the opposite to what you are saying (?)

This exchange reminds me of an ancient joke, of the Mogoo Bird.

This bird flies in slowly diminishing circles until it flies into it's own butt.

Gentlemen, I think we have arrived...

michswiss

NeilL wrote:

So we can discuss whether something is PJ or not without touching our agreement about the meaning of PJ. The consensus would not move, but what it refers to could change.

I think this is the opposite to what you are saying (?)

In the case of your definition of Photojournalism, there were several subjective statements about "earthing, touching base, ground zero". I think I understand what you are saying and at least have a sense that I'd use those terms as well to describe photojournalistic images.

This is why "Reference Implementations" are so handy in the world of standards. If we were able to post an image and agree that it emoted a common reaction, then we'd have a baseline. But I think that this will always be subjective. I guess the only thing I'd not want from PJ is contrivance.

NeilL

torags wrote:

This exchange reminds me of an ancient joke, of the Mogoo Bird.

This bird flies in slowly diminishing circles until it flies into it's own butt.

Gentlemen, I think we have arrived...

Ah, Rags, you have not yet got to the whole point of the story - that the bird reached a conclusion, and what it understood when it got there!

That's the problem, people fly in diminishing circles and miss the connection at the end. Doomed to repeat the circling.

torags

NeilL wrote:

Ah, Rags, you have not yet got to the whole point of the story - that the bird reached a conclusion, and what it understood when it got there!

While true... every time he talks about the conclusion, people say he's full of sh***

and that my friend is my problem....

NeilL

michswiss wrote:

... I guess the only thing I'd not want from PJ is contrivance.

Certainly!

NeilL

torags wrote:

While true... every time he talks about the conclusion, people say he's full of sh***

and that my friend is my problem....

You have to confront that material to get passed it, habibi!