From: imprint@watserv1.waterloo.edu (IMPRINT -- UW's Student Newspaper)
Subject: Re: Photo Journalism and new improvements?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 03:39:27 GMT

In article <204648@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jonathan S. Anderson) writes:
> A few years ago, I attended a photojournalism conference sponsored by
> the Pittsburgh Press.  The press does this conference every year and gets
> some of the best photographers from all over to attend.  (I highly recommend
> this conference to any budding photographers out there)  Anyway, as usual
> they brought samples of all the newest technologies to the conference.
> 
> The technology that caused the biggest stir was digital cameras.  The concept
> was simple.  You slipped a floppy disk or some other storage device

[deletia]

> As you can imagine this technology caused quite a stir at the time.
> 
> Some things to think about and possibly discuss:
> 
> 1) If the image can be stored digitally, it could also be easily transmitted
> via radio signal to waiting editors.  While the photographer is taking

True.

> 
> 2) Images could be much more easily stored and cataloged in a filing system
> without the need to make occasional reproductions of old photos.
> 
> 3) Techniques such as burning, dodging, pushing film, etc. would become
> virtually obsolete.  Any light or dark spots in the image could be compensated
> for directly on a computer terminal.  Even a poor exposure could be adjusted
> right at the monitor.  The potential for better photographs is infinite.

     This sort of reminds me of the vinyl/CD debate.  Alienation from the 
means of production, I suppose.  In the same way that I miss getting an
album out of its sleeve, and placing the stylus on the record, I think we'd
miss the fun of taking the film out of its final wash and rushing over to
a light table to see what kind of images we've got, and then of course 
printing the pictures.
     As for a better photograph...I suppose it would be "cleaner", but much
less original.  "Better" is relative.

> 
> 4) If there is no film to keep, it is more and more difficult for "disgruntled"
> types to take your images away from you.  Sure, a policeman or military official
> might be able to grab your floppy disk, but the camera could also be 
> transmitting the same image to any one of a thousand places.  Would this be
> placing the photojournalist into more danger.  In the past, some officials in
> various places are notorious for grabbing film, hitting the journalist a few
> times and releasing him.  What would happen if the official knew his photo
> was taken and there was nothing he could do about it?
> 
> 5) On a practical level, the public's faith in journalists' integrity may
> falter.  Currently, the public has the impression that what they see in a
> picture must be truth.  (Many of us know the wonders of spot tone and
> "artful dodging", but even so... Pictures generally do not lie.)  If an
> image could be stored in a computer, the computer could just as easily be
> used to alter that same image in any way desirable.  Journalistic integrity
> should keep this from happenning, but just the fact that it is possible
> could force the public to lose faith in that same integrity.

Two different images spring to mind.  One is, of course, digital images; the
second is that movie that Schwarzenegger was in, where the image was
manipulated and he ended up in that futuristic game show with the evil 
host.  The image manipulation technologies aren't too far from being able
to accomplish this, from what I know.
     Much of the public have faith that the mass media are telling us the
truth right now, but anyone who bothers to delve into issues of media bias
knows otherwise.

> 
> 6) On a more realistic level, many photographers would be very tempted to
> edit out objects in backgrounds.  How many photojournalists do you know that
> are out there looking for the cleanest background possible?  Depth of field
> would no longer be a worry.  If a tree trunk is growing out of someone's head,
> you simply erase the tree instead of burning or cropping it out.  Does this
> lend to any unethical behavior on the part of the journalist.  What becomes
> of the art if anyone can take the perfect photo?

     The invention of autofocus cameras worried me in the same way.  Less skill
involved, less talent?  Pro sports photographers can be focussed on one play,
see something out of the corner of their eye, and spin the camera and focus
without even looking thru the eyepiece.  That sort of talent has to translate
to a more able photographer, although I'm not exactly sure how.
     A lot of the excitement about photography are those unexpected pictures,
with some unusual expression or object in the background.  Or the composition
of a hastily-taken picture might just turn out to be the best one you've ever
taken.  If you didn't have to reload film, you'd be even more snap-happy and
take a lot of unexceptional pictures, I think.  And if you're scanning a video
screen when you decide what to print, you might miss some of the art in under-
exposed or off-hand shots, that you might of noticed with a contact sheet in
front of you.
     It's hard to express or guess what the difference would be, but when a
communication medium becomes electronically-transferable, there's a big 
difference in how it affects us.  Can you imagine reading your newspaper
on a computer terminal?  If they stopped using newsprint, you couldn't read
the paper while having a cigarette, on the bus, or whatever.  
     Sound like a thesis topic for a sociology major.
> 
> Any discussion on this topic might be very interesting and fruitful.  I haven't
> seen many postings yet concerning photo-j.

Well, technology and progress march forward and, like the vinyl/CD debate,
I don't think there's much stopping digital cameras.

Perhaps we should move this to rec.photo?

> 
> -Jon Anderson.
> 
> 
>   ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  
>   Jon Anderson                                      jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu
>       "Won't you look down upon me Jesus, you gotta help me make a stand,
>        You've just got to see me through another day.
>        My body's aching and my time is at hand,
>        And I won't make it any other way. "                 -James Taylor
>   <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  


Dave Thomson
opinions mine, not Imprint's

"At the end of every hard-earned day, people find some reason to believe"
- Bruce Springsteen

-- 

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,ba.general,biz.misc,ca.general,alt.dcom.catv,rec.arts.tv,rec.video,rec.video.cable-tv,rec.video.satellite,rec.video.production