World Press
I forgot to mention in my previous post to mention that I also checked out the World Press Photo exhibition on sat. Though, it's probably better that I write a "review" of it in a separate post. :P
So yeah, here's my review...
First impressions? to be honest i was a bit "meh" about it at first. But that's probably because the displays in the first room that you see first were the sports photos. I mean there were some really really cool shots there. But the first ones I saw were the ones of the swimmers. There were some amazing compositions in this lot, but I know that for many (in fact most) of these shots, the cameras have been set up prior to the event under the water, with the exposures all preset, and all the photographer does is fire a remote shutter when the swimmers dive off the blocks or as they go past. Plus shooting digital, they probably capture hundreds of frames in the one event, and really by pure luck and may get an "award winning" photo. Plus I'm sure that their compositions were not that tight, but rather that they would've shot loosely and cropped in post-production to give the final result. So to me those shots were more "luck" than skill... Call me a cynic :P
With regard to the other sports photos, I didn't really like the shots taken by David Burnett. there were some nice compositions, but I just felt like the "gaussian blur" was a bit over the top and too obvious for me, and also uneven in places. Also for a lot of the shots, I couldn't tell what the point of focus was. Very often the main subject of the shot was not in focus, and though my eye was to focus and pay attention to it, I kept finding my eye being drawn to other less important parts of the photo. However, I did find his shot of the hockey field quite intriguing. I felt like i was viewing a toy model. The players just had that really strange toy-like feel to them! But again in this shot, I couldn't tell what or who was the focal point of the photo.
Moving on to the other photographic categories, I found many of the shots to be nothing really special at first glance. However, in series with the other shots of the same theme or subject, there was "strength in numbers", and together they told a story. However, what I found most moving and powerful, was reading the stories and background of the shots. This brought the photos to life, giving them meaning and purpose, making me relate to the subject/s. Without the background info, I found many photos to be quite pointless, and purposeless. There was no great photographic technique to marvel at, but with the story, I really felt the photos come to life.
I think, that on the whole I'm not a big fan of the reportage medium of photography. It has it's place, and certainly plays an important role in documenting important events. But from a photographic purists point of view, to me (possibly naivety) it just seems a lot like shooting hundreds of pics in the hope that by chance u get a good/great shot. Things happen so quickly that u don't really have time to compose a shot, it's just hit and miss. But then again, like I said, I'm probably speaking out of naivety, and I'm happy to be proved and shown to be wrong.
Having said that though, there were some truely amazing pics. One of my favourites was the shot of the fire in Brazil with the girl standing on the right. The colors were sooo vivid, and the composition spot on!! Another one was African orphan standing in the field. Again, the colours in this shot were amazingly saturated!! And the series of the Nightwatchmen in Burkina to me was really amazing.
I could keep going and going. I haven't even mentioned the nature shots like the animals feet and storm chasers.
I guess on the whole I did enjoy the exhibition. Seeing the photographic documentation of such tragic events like the tsunami really hit home to me how good we have it here in Sydney. But at the same time, it made me realise that I don't think I could ever pursue a career as a photojournalist, at least not in those environments. I would be too overwhelmed by the circumstances to worry about taking photos! Like that shot of the african immigrants in the water. If I were the photographer, I'd be more worried about helping them get in the boat than taking photos!!!!
I think i'll stick to landscapes and weddings. Much less stressful in comparison!!
3 Comments:
I somehow missed this post but glad I came to see it now. Whilst I agree with you about not really appreciating the 'machine gun' approach of taking sports photography, I believe the best sports shooting does not include this. After spending a lot of time on possibly the best resource for sports photographers (www.sportsshooter.com) there is a LOT involved in being a professional sports shooter.
Whilst many people believe the guys just rock up and take their shots, those remotes do take a lot of time to set up and angle correctly. And your comment about cropping I believe is incorrect - almost all the photogs for SI and the Sporting News want to get it right in camera, first time. Check out some of the special features at SS.com to see how critical the judges (the aforementioned SI photogs) are of up-and-comers.
Without having seen the pics in person, I can't comment to the same degree as you - but you are right - captioning is crucial to the impact of photojournalism. Too little info and we don't have a clue, too much useless info and the impact is lost. I believe photo captioning is a true skill which takes time to develop.
Wow, turning into a mini-sermon here eh? I don't think I could have a job as a PJ - there's too much of a toll on your life both physically and emotionally - but I do appreciate those who have gone to the efforts of telling stories via images which we would never understand otherwise.
In a time of media and information saturation, we can become blase about things we should really be fired up about, or mourning, or laughing about. As we continue our progress into a technologically overloaded future, I believe we are becoming more and more apathetic with the information we have around us.
This is where PJ comes into place. Images are able to portray things which no words can, and images can tell news in a way which leaves an indelible print on peoples minds. Many people can remember the famous image of a Viet Cong prisoner being shot on the streets of Saigon during the Vietnam War. Not many can remember the names or date, but it was crucial to the change in opinion in the USA to ending the war. Similarly recent events which we have become apathetic about can be jolted back into fresh reality when we see an image again from those days. The first time I visited Digital Journalist and saw/read the images of Sept 11, 2001 there I was in tears. (http://www.digitaljournalist.org)
Anyway, time to get off my soapbox. I can talk more about this to you in person. As for David Burnett - it's not Gaussian Blur - I'd say it's a Lensbaby or even a tilt-shift lens doing that effect. Take a look into it :)
geez...
that's the longest post u've ever written on my blog dude!!
must've been a slow day at work, or something really sparked your creative juices flowing here!! :P
u didn't miss this post. i started writing it last thurs, but only finished it last night. :P
hmm... yeah u're prob right about the sport photogs. but i still struggle to see how the shots that are set up underwater are rigged purposefully for such shots. on land, with a telephoto and monopod, yeah sure, i can see how many compositions are captured. but setting up underwater shots, that's a whole diff ball game.
i should check out those sites
thanks for your insights into PJs :). yeah...
re david burnett... are u sure it's a lensbaby or tilt-shift???
sure didn't look like it when i was standing in front of them at the gallery
the abberation was too uneven.. looked deliberately applied in post processing..
if it were a lensbaby or tilt-shift, wouldn't u expect the abberation to be more gradual and incoporated into the shot?
Heheh - I think it was more that the topic struck a nerve since I've been following photojournalism for a while at those two particular sites.
Interestingly enough David Burnett is a member at SportsShooter.com (http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=89) which goes to show just how big a deal that particular website is.
Actually, after a bit of digging around (I KNEW that these images were ringing a bell in my head) I realised it wasn't a LensBaby at all. He's using a 55-year-old 4-by-5-inch Graflex Speed Graphic camera, complete with tripod :)
So that would be a large format camera with lenses with movements (tilt/shift) to achieve that selective depth of field effect...
Here was the article I read...
http://news.com.com/Which+camera+does+this+pro+use+It+depends/2100-1040_3-5740556.html
Google is a wonderful thing :D
Post a Comment
<< Home