Hi Cotty ... I agree with most everything you've said except that, for the most part, I don't think the photos are particularly good. Quite a few wouldn't work at all without greater context or without an explanation. While they may be representative of the event for which they were taken, composition, storytelling, and the ability to make me feel something is lacking.
There are those who subscribe to the idea that news an PJ photos need only deliver the information, however, I believe that a photograph, regardless of its purpose, needs more. It needs a strong image, that sense of composition I mentioned, and an unquantifiable "something" that brings forth the feeling that the photographer cared about the people and the situations depicted in each image. While the mediocrity of these images stands out like a sore thumb, I cannot point a finger only at the photographers. I believe the editors and the publishers are at least as responsible. I believe that a lot of editors these days are not well versed in what makes a photograph a good or a great photograph, just as I believe many photographers are incapable of understanding what elements are needed to make a truly good photo. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Cotty > On 13/12/05, Bob W said: > > >It's not their job to publish inspirational and joyful photos. The world is > >awash with that type of photo. What it's short of is good hard news > >photography. > > It's their job to provide a balanced view of good hard news. Speaking of > which - here's some Breaking News: there were plenty of good hard news > events happening all over the world that did not consist of a tsunami, > hurricanes, and so on. But this is all pretty much irrelevant - > publishing news pics is just like anything publishing most news > magazines, it's totally subjective. They publish what they believe > their readers want to see, and they're totally at liberty to do so. > Personally, I have never had the desire to subscribe or buy Time > magazine, and I have seen nothing recently that has changed my mind. > > >The big news stories of the year have been the tsunami, hurricanes and so > >on, so that's what you'd expect to feature. What would people have said > >about balance if at the end of 2001 there had been nothing about the WTC > >attacks? > > There were other big news stories of the year (2005) that do not feature > in the Time's 'Best Photos of the Year 2005', and I would expect them to > feature those as well. regarding the WTC attacks, in a line-up of ten > 'best' photos of the year, I would expect 1 pic. In a lineup of 24, > maybe 2 or 3 pics. About 5000 people died in a landmark mass murder, and > that is big news in the western world, but far more people die from > starvation and poverty: about 1000 people per hour (source: UN World > Food Programme). In the Time list, there is one photo (out of 24) [pic > 21] illustrating a mother and child in war-torn Sudan. That's it. There > are 6 (out of 24) shots of the aftermaths of hurricanes hitting America. > For a publication purporting to cover world events, I consider this > unbalanced. But what's new - Time readers are more interested in the > hurricanes hitting their own shores than the thousands of tons of > corpses piling up in a land many miles away, and who can blame them. > > I like good hard news photography, and I have no problem with a rash of > death and destruction - that's reality and to me it's all news, good or > bad. I do not distinguish between 'good' news or 'bad' news - that would > be subjective and I avoid that. What i do distinguish between is a > perceived unbalanced reporting that does not deliver a wide > representative coverage of world events. I'm not saying Time is an > example of this (I don't have nearly enough experience of its pages over > the years), but what i do say is that based on its 'Best Photos of the > Year' (2005) collection, as a whole, it sucks! > > Individually, most pics are first rate, and there are some incredibly > good shots. > > FWIW, the only paper magazine i subscribe to is National Geographic. I'm > afraid my sub to Foto8 has lapsed - I like it a lot but I find it too > wordy for my taste, and not enough pics. Bring back the Illustrated > London news!
