Press Photography and Large Format

All of this discussion aboiut it can't be done is silly. David Burnett is
covering the campaign trial using a Speed Graphic and a variety of 4x5 films.

steve simmons

"CamArtsMag" wrote in message
...
All of this discussion aboiut it can't be done is silly. David Burnett is
covering the campaign trial using a Speed Graphic and a variety of 4x5
films.

True, so true and that should end the thread.

I look forward to reading the article on David Burnett. Thanks for that!

Of course the photos he takes will tell you more about the methods he
employs then they will of the subject.

I'm reminded of other "projects" where otherwise intelligent photographers
used equipment unsuited for the job at hand simply to have a hook for
publication.

When the camera used becomes the story, the photojournalist has failed.

John Emmons

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"CamArtsMag" wrote in message
...
All of this discussion aboiut it can't be done is silly. David Burnett
is
covering the campaign trial using a Speed Graphic and a variety of 4x5
films.

True, so true and that should end the thread.

I look forward to reading the article on David Burnett. Thanks for that!

"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
Of course the photos he takes will tell you more about the methods he
employs then they will of the subject.

I'm reminded of other "projects" where otherwise intelligent photographers
used equipment unsuited for the job at hand simply to have a hook for
publication.

When the camera used becomes the story, the photojournalist has failed.

I sense a real sour grapes attitude. Now tell us exactly what equipment
SHOULD a PJ use?

No sour grapes at all. The simple fact that a story has been written on the
fact that Mr. Burnett is covering the campaign with a 4"x5" is evidence
enough that his equipment has become the story, not his images.

As for what equipment anyone should use, whatever they're comfortable with I
suppose. And of course whatever they need to fulfill their editor's needs.
When I was a working photojournalist I used Canon 35mm and Leica 35mm.
Rentals and loaner equipment was readily available thru Canon Pro Services.
Except for the Leica's of course.Durability wasn't a problem. Neither was
image quality. I'm now using a Canon digital 10-d body with my old "L"
series lenses. A very nice combination but I don't do day to day news
photography any more.

If I had been a working press photographer in the first half of the last
century, I no doubt would have used a Speed Graphic.

Artificially limiting one's self to a camera that has seen it's day isn't
telling the day to day story of a presidential campaign any better than
those photographer's using the most modern digital gear. It's stroking the
ego of the photographer and it provides a hook for the photographer to sell
to an editor. I can only assume that Mr. Burnett is working on a book
project as getting 4"x5" images to a magazine or a daily newspaper is
problematical these days.

Good for him and whomever else is working on the campaigns I guess, it gives
them work in a time when photojournalism as it was once practiced is
virtually non-existent, just don't try and sell it as the best way to
document a campaign, cause it ain't.



John Emmons

Mr. Burnett's images have appeared on the covers of many national publications.

All this naysaying is empty pontificating

steve simmons

"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
No sour grapes at all. The simple fact that a story has been written on
the
fact that Mr. Burnett is covering the campaign with a 4"x5" is evidence
enough that his equipment has become the story, not his images.

Thanks for coming back on this, John. I was running out the door, being
hasty. This subject deserves more considerate discussion.

It is unfortunate, but inevitable, that people are making news of the
hardware. Agreed. But in the long-term the work will, or will not, stand on
its own. Besides, he's not the only one photographing the events in
question. Please read on.

First, an unfortunate truism - very often adequate visual evidence of an
event can be conveyed using the simplest equipment with an uninformed,
unprofessional photographer, but usually that kind of thing doesn't make it
because we, the readers and viewers, would like pictures that are more
sophisticated, so we tend to choose professional photojournalism wherein the
photographers choose a point-of-view, for better or worse, which is more
distinguishing. Now take that one more step - the LF work being done by Mr.
Burnett adds new language to the reportage stills, and that's a good thing
for those who understand or appreciate the language.

[...]
If I had been a working press photographer in the first half of the last
century, I no doubt would have used a Speed Graphic.

I have a sneaking suspicion you would have also toyed with that new-fangled
miniature camera, the Leica.

Artificially limiting one's self to a camera that has seen it's day isn't
telling the day to day story of a presidential campaign any better than
those photographer's using the most modern digital gear.

I disagree. As I said above, there are a lot of pictures being made and
Burnett's contribution offers some unique views and sophisticated
photographic language. I am very happy he's doing what he is.

It's stroking the
ego of the photographer and it provides a hook for the photographer to
sell
to an editor. I can only assume that Mr. Burnett is working on a book
project as getting 4"x5" images to a magazine or a daily newspaper is
problematical these days.

I'll bet his ego is the least of his motivations, but even if it were, then
the pictures have to stand on their own, and I will bet they do.

Good for him and whomever else is working on the campaigns I guess, it
gives
them work in a time when photojournalism as it was once practiced is
virtually non-existent, just don't try and sell it as the best way to
document a campaign, cause it ain't.

Indeed, PJ seems to be a waning craft, but actually in terms of the numbers
of essays it is still well represented. Stills simply hold a lesser
_percentage_ of the mass media than they once did. But you know, I've never
known a good and successful photojournalist who sought celebrity status, and
that's a good thing.

Mr. Burnett's images have appeared on the covers of many national publications.

All this naysaying is empty pontificating

steve simmons

"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
No sour grapes at all. The simple fact that a story has been written on
the
fact that Mr. Burnett is covering the campaign with a 4"x5" is evidence
enough that his equipment has become the story, not his images.

Thanks for coming back on this, John. I was running out the door, being
hasty. This subject deserves more considerate discussion.

It is unfortunate, but inevitable, that people are making news of the
hardware. Agreed. But in the long-term the work will, or will not, stand on
its own. Besides, he's not the only one photographing the events in
question. Please read on.

First, an unfortunate truism - very often adequate visual evidence of an
event can be conveyed using the simplest equipment with an uninformed,
unprofessional photographer, but usually that kind of thing doesn't make it
because we, the readers and viewers, would like pictures that are more
sophisticated, so we tend to choose professional photojournalism wherein the
photographers choose a point-of-view, for better or worse, which is more
distinguishing. Now take that one more step - the LF work being done by Mr.
Burnett adds new language to the reportage stills, and that's a good thing
for those who understand or appreciate the language.

[...]
If I had been a working press photographer in the first half of the last
century, I no doubt would have used a Speed Graphic.

I have a sneaking suspicion you would have also toyed with that new-fangled
miniature camera, the Leica.

Artificially limiting one's self to a camera that has seen it's day isn't
telling the day to day story of a presidential campaign any better than
those photographer's using the most modern digital gear.

I disagree. As I said above, there are a lot of pictures being made and
Burnett's contribution offers some unique views and sophisticated
photographic language. I am very happy he's doing what he is.

It's stroking the
ego of the photographer and it provides a hook for the photographer to
sell
to an editor. I can only assume that Mr. Burnett is working on a book
project as getting 4"x5" images to a magazine or a daily newspaper is
problematical these days.

I'll bet his ego is the least of his motivations, but even if it were, then
the pictures have to stand on their own, and I will bet they do.

Good for him and whomever else is working on the campaigns I guess, it
gives
them work in a time when photojournalism as it was once practiced is
virtually non-existent, just don't try and sell it as the best way to
document a campaign, cause it ain't.

Indeed, PJ seems to be a waning craft, but actually in terms of the numbers
of essays it is still well represented. Stills simply hold a lesser
_percentage_ of the mass media than they once did. But you know, I've never
known a good and successful photojournalist who sought celebrity status, and
that's a good thing.

No sour grapes at all. The simple fact that a story has been written on the
fact that Mr. Burnett is covering the campaign with a 4"x5" is evidence
enough that his equipment has become the story, not his images.

As for what equipment anyone should use, whatever they're comfortable with I
suppose. And of course whatever they need to fulfill their editor's needs.
When I was a working photojournalist I used Canon 35mm and Leica 35mm.
Rentals and loaner equipment was readily available thru Canon Pro Services.
Except for the Leica's of course.Durability wasn't a problem. Neither was
image quality. I'm now using a Canon digital 10-d body with my old "L"
series lenses. A very nice combination but I don't do day to day news
photography any more.

If I had been a working press photographer in the first half of the last
century, I no doubt would have used a Speed Graphic.

Artificially limiting one's self to a camera that has seen it's day isn't
telling the day to day story of a presidential campaign any better than
those photographer's using the most modern digital gear. It's stroking the
ego of the photographer and it provides a hook for the photographer to sell
to an editor. I can only assume that Mr. Burnett is working on a book
project as getting 4"x5" images to a magazine or a daily newspaper is
problematical these days.

Good for him and whomever else is working on the campaigns I guess, it gives
them work in a time when photojournalism as it was once practiced is
virtually non-existent, just don't try and sell it as the best way to
document a campaign, cause it ain't.



John Emmons