And it has got massive. Even as the photography department is gutted, there is a far greater need for photographs to go with stories than ever before in the entire history of modern media. For web sites, every goddamn story needs a picture to go with it, leading to some use of stock images that is painful for all involved.
They’re not just necessary to fill the fuckin’ space, they’re also a vital component in the readership and success of a news story. Any online news editor can tell you that a story with a vibrant, interesting or crazy photo on it will always, always do better than something that has a generic stock image that has been used 27 times before. And they know that people like stories with pictures of faces on them, and they like pictures with fire and flames in them even more.
And yet, the picture desks have been decimated, if they’re lucky, and professional visual journalists are becoming more and more rare.
The chief executives and managing directors of the media companies cutting back on their picture resources have resorted to the easiest of arguments to justify it – they don’t need photographers, because everybody is a photographer now.
Everybody has a high-powered still and video camera sitting in their pocket. The explosion of the smartphone means that sort of technology is literally at our fingertips, and anybody on the scene of a developing story can snatch a snap.
This is, obviously, a great thing for newsrooms dealing with breaking news – after an initial round of stock images for a big event, there can be a deluge of photos, from both reporters who have been dispatched to cover it, and members of the general public who are willing to share their snaps with a media organisation. (Sadly, those who dream of getting rich by snapping a news event and flogging off their images will have to produce something truly outstanding to get any kind of money – almost every newsroom in New Zealand will balk at paying the average punter for any photo, unless it is incredibly good.)
But there is almost no argument that the actual quality of the image can vary wildly because, amazingly, taking great photos is a real fucking skill, and usually requires someone with expertise, experience and the proper equipment to capture the right moment.
Reporters who have been in the game for years might get an hour’s worth of photography training before being expected to get top-notch shots at every story they go to, and might be completely unable to get a photo that isn’t blurred, over-exposed or plain incomprehensible.
It’s not just a matter of creating an image that is stunning and beautiful, and capable of catching the eye when it’s floating on the sea of a major news web page, it’s a matter of capturing the right moment at the right time, in the right light.
Instead, professional news organisations are only too happy to look like foolish amateurs, with a desperate standard of ‘anything will do’. It’s another situation that is unlikely to change any time soon, when the overall feeling seems to be that anybody can take a picture good enough to share. They can't.
- Katherine Grant
Posts
