Profile
Subscribe
I just read a very interesting post on photojournalism called Crossings. Using as an example Webbs work along the Mexican Boarder.
I would love to know what you think - Photojournalism - dead or alive?
Kimberly's Blog
The Content on this site is provided for general information purposes only. Your use of the Content, or any part thereof, is made solely at Your own risk and responsibility. By entering this site you declare you read and agreed to its Terms, Rules & Privacy.
Copyright © 2006 - 2010 Photography Board |
TIP: Write your question in detail [
why?
]
Sponsored LinksLatest Posts
|
Absolutely not dead, even though a lot of media providing outlets for photojournalism are rapidly going paws-up. Photojournalism is simply telling a news story (or a human interest story) in pictures. Though video seems to be the more common medium, there’s a certain power to a still image. The image of the Oklahoma City firefighter carrying the bloodied baby from the bombing of the Federal building said so much more than the many videos of the scene. The stark B&W image of the Phillipino busboy cradling the head of the dying Bobby Kennedy ecame an icon, much more than did the videos of the crowd screaming at the entrance to the ballroom’s kitchen. And then there was the image of the Federal troop holding an automatic weapon at a crying Elian Gonzales in the closet. Humans have a need to simplify and compartmentalize. Photojournalistic images allow them to do that. It’s a form that’s not going away any time soon, IMO.
I agree with you 100%. There is something very powerful in stills, that is non existent in video. A still freezes a moment in time, allowing you to ponder on that specific moment, on that specific person, on that specific incident in a way that a video depicting an event doesn’t do. In other words, stills allow a depth video’s do not.