Michael Kamber on photojournalism today
Michael Kamber is an award winning photographer who currently works for the New York Times, here he outlines his view of the state of photojournalism today.
This is the first in a series of articles to be published this week, each one by a different author looking at the world of photojournalism from a number of angles.
"I remember arriving in New York in 1985 only to find that I'd arrived too late: photojournalism was dead. This was common knowledge - everybody said so. Life, Look, and The Saturday Evening Post were gone and photojournalists were struggling to find new markets and new ways to finance their work and reach the public. The murderer was television. The evil box had reduced attention spans and created a hunger for constant movement - something we photographers could never match.
"I scratched my way into the profession with a generation of men and women now approaching the age of 50. We shot demonstrations on spec, souped our film in the bathroom, sold photos to AP or Reuters for $25, slept in groups on hotel room floors in Port-au-Prince and Mexico City.
"And lo and behold, we scratched out a living as photojournalists. Some of us did quite well. True, the grand picture magazines were gone, but Time, Newsweek, US News and most of the big papers in the US had photographers on assignment all over the world. Gamma, Sipa, Sygma and other photo agencies thrived.”
"Now, 25-years later, I'm the one saying that photojournalism is dead. And it is dead, as Neil Burgess has famously pointed out; at least as we have know it.
"I was in Baghdad covering the election this past winter - a historic election marking a supposed turning point in conflict of the decade. Ten years ago there would have been 20 photojournalists there. I was there with one other Western photographer that I'm aware of - Andrea Bruce, who had come largely on her own.
"I have the luxury to work on contract for The New York Times, probably the only remaining paper in the world with the budget and commitment to finance photojournalism on a large scale. And I'm proud of my paper - we've covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from top to bottom, start to finish. Three hundred people were recently laid off, but the NYT's foreign bureaux remain open.
"Yet we are the last stalwarts; my photojournalist friends at other mainstream newspapers say their travel budgets are gone. The LA Times, US News and Newsweek appear to be sliding towards bankruptcy; The Washington Post closed nearly all its foreign bureaux; Time is a shadow of its former self.
"But is photojournalism really dead? When my mentors in 1985 lamented the passing of photojournalism, what they were really marking was the passing of their system, their model. And it was a great model. And the model that we reinvented in the 1980s and 1990s was pretty damn good too. Now it's my generation's turn to lament the passing. But once again, what is dead is not photojournalism - what is dead is the particular culture of photojournalism that supported us for the past 30 years.
"Today there is a new way, a new system. I meet young photographers constantly: idealistic, excited, naïve, creative. They may have missed out on the magic of baryta paper in a tray of Dektol, but they love image-making nonetheless. And as has been said ad-nauseum, they are focusing on new models for raising cash to do projects - the grants, agency workshops, Emphasis, the partnerships with NGOs (which I find troubling for reasons I won't detail here), and others. I myself am using Emphasis to raise money for a book project.
"And of course, a photojournalist today has to be much more of an overall journalist - video, written pieces, and multi-media are crucial to stitching together a living.
"Do I like this new developing model? Not much. Does it allow for a photographer to have job security, raise a family with health insurance, know that someone will evacuate him or her if injured in a warzone? Absolutely not.
"But this developing model is what we've got and we have to work with it, there is no other option. What troubles me is that we are becoming ghettoised. As the mainstream press dies a slow and ugly death, we increasingly work for each other - for the cultish community of photo festivals and workshops, awards and grants, boutique print collectors. And this new model will surely exacerbate something I deplore about photojournalism: it is increasingly a community of privileged white people. I was astonished a few years ago to sit at an awards ceremony in Amsterdam with about 300 other photographers and editors. There was exactly one African and possibly one or two Latinos in the room, though probably 75% of the ‘subjects’ were people of colour.
"It is up to the photo community to break out of this new model, democratise it and reach new audiences. I can see it happening already. And though I may not like the business model, the bottom line is this: there is a new generation out there shooting pictures in the corners of the world every day.
"No doubt, 35 years from now, there will be yet another new model. This will allow the youth of today their deserved turn to lament the death of photojournalism."
You can see more of Michael's work on his website. [Warning: The site contains photographs of warfare and graphic violence.]
Tomorrow, David Campbell, photographic consultant, writer and producer, talks about photography in the age of mass media and image abundance.
David Campbell on photojournalism in the age of image abundance
Adrian Evans on future funding of photojournalism
Coming at photojournalism from a different angle
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~01~RS~)
I'm 
© 2012
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This is the first time this blog has attracted my attention. Why because it is talking about a subject relevant to the status and mission of this organisation. Namely, the credibility and quality of the storyteller.
Change is never easy but often it is necessary. Photojournalism has a very long way to go. It is still a young medium. Photojournalists are currently exploring, creating new routes for audience reaction. The important aspect here is to cease looking to institutions like the bbc and new york time for financial support and turn to the market with real money power. i.e. the public. The public is getting interested in citizen journalism. They are also getting interested in who are the master crafters of journalism. (Wikileaks etc). If photojournalist are in a ghetto then just leave the ghetto and join the wider public.
Complain about this comment
It would be great if photojournalists helped illustrate and make richer the raw data journalism from wikileaks, openleaks, indoleaks, etc.
I don't think the public prefer TV over photographs. I think we see both as having their place. Take for example the photographs on this blog entry - I for one would have loved to click on each picture and be taken to a photo gallery of similar* pictures. One thing TV has done however is made us want more art in the photographs as opposed to merely a visual record. TV for visual record, photography for conveying an emotion.
*same event, same location, or even photographs with the same sort of mood.
Complain about this comment
No other media has a better future than photojournalism given the current state of universal apathy towards reading and dwindling love for long prose today. Television networks may compete in this field but whoever is holding the camera will still be considered a photojournalist.
Complain about this comment
That rates paid for photographs have not increased for 15 years in real terms those rates have actually dropped. All the media organisations are interested in is profit, this is why there are no more publications left like picture post and Life Magazine, they are too expensive to put and the audience is limited.
The BBC are no better than any ANY other large media group when it comes to wanting to pay the lowest price or get images for free where ever and as often they can. Thanks to these attitudes. Photojournalism is dead and the photographers who produce it are a dying breed.
You dont believe me?
Follow the link http://bit.ly/9HYyBx (its a BBC search)
Check out how many times it says send us your pictures Follow and or all of the links not once on any link do the BBC offer to pay you for your pictures. This is not a dig at the BBC all the media organisations are the same. Free content which they then sell = increased profits. So why Should they pay me for one of my photos when they can use yours for nothing?
Combine that with the fact we live in a celebrity driven culture, so we are stuck with the likes of OK Hello magazine and news media that pander to the lowest common denominator by spewing out page after page and hour after hour of celebrity rubbish. Watch the closely as the photojournalist becomes extinct.
Complain about this comment
To my mind, photojournalism is being threatened more by amateurs than anything else. Automatic digital cameras are very good nowadays, and you don't have to be any kind of expert to use the excellent camera built in to the iphone. To get your shot on the TV news or in every newspaper in the land, you just have to be in the right place at the right time - and often the 'payment' is the excitement of seeing your work on websites or on the news.
No wonder papers and magazines are laying off photographers - they have a steady stream of images being offered on a daily basis - free. What's more, as we, the public, look at these grainy camera phone films or photos, so our standards and expectations lower, and we accept the revised quality.
In all honesty, I don't know what photo journalists can do to combat that - except produce more and more graphic images that will catch the attention of even the most hardened magazine browser. Blood sells.
Complain about this comment
I'm a reasonably young documentary photographer (turned 30 last week) and I've survived for seven years freelancing in a pretty shitty marginalised industry. I'm not dead.
Complain about this comment
here we go again: " the partnerships with NGOs (which I find troubling for reasons I won't detail here)"
This partnership is nothing new and has been around for way longer then today. it'smore popular now than before because the classic financing model is gone.
Complain about this comment
I'm 24 and have a long way to go (seemingly longer when reading articles like this). However, unlike Mr. Kamber (whom I greatly respect) I shoot stills and video, edit and animate, and plan on using a combination of these skills to kick ass in this industry. It's a new age, let's get over it. I may not end up wealthy in my later years like Nachtwey, Erwitt, or (I assume) Kamber, but that's not going to stop me. Not for a minute.
Complain about this comment
With any Tom-Dick&Harry with a DSLR or Superzoom and tons of images out there on the internet I'd say in a way yes. There is only place for the very few and the very best left. Much like manual exchange operators were replaced by technology.
Also, if you look at that hairdryer contraption at the Canon expo that "videos" images which you can pick and choose from, without having a "good eye", the future points a way to less and less need for pro photogs.
Complain about this comment
Of course, Photojournalism is not dead, on the contrary it is alive and very exciting. What is dead is the model by which the media and the public benefit from photojournalism.
The Media model is dead because they still (or the mindset is still the same) think of a photojournalist a title they confer to selected few and then give them enough money to make a sort of living from their profession. Today, we know that money should, if not ought to, follow merit. If editors paid for good photos then many people would be able to make part of their living from Photojournalism. Maybe media outlet should be made to pay a reasonable fee for what they use; and that includes photos from the public.
It is true that everyone these days has a camera but it does not follow that every one is taking good photo journalistic photos. Serious photojournalist can be relied on to provide the necessary images for a story. Those who behave professionally will always, in my opinion, be ahead of the game.
And my third point reflects what @T from New Zealand said about wanting to see more images for a story. On a website there is no excuse at all for media outlet not to include a dozen or so images for a story. Yes you will have to pay the photographers, but if this can create a better business model than it makes sense to try it.
Complain about this comment
I suspect that I'm a good deal older than many of those who have commented above, I say this based on the fact that I've been working in photojournalism for more than 50 years - which puts me just the wrong side of 70.
The one thing that is absolutely certain when you look at PJ today is that there are a few really exceptional, highly talented, individuals working in this field and it is a pleasure to look at their work: these are people to whom the camera is simply an extension of their arm and brain.
Sadly there are vast numbers of PJs who enjoy saying "I'm a photojournalist" and who haven't the faintest idea of what this really means. All to often they are simply in love with the concept, their ever more expensive gear which they have never mastered using and probably never will. But where they really fall down is that they have no idea of what makes a really good picture and even less idea of how to go about writing some copy to go with their pixs.
Good photojournalism is not simply standing in the middle of a riot shooting hundreds of images in the hope that somewhere among them will be one that actually sells.
When I first started I worked for a photo-feature agency. One of the then editors said; what separates a really good PJ from an ordinary photographer is that if you send them both into a jumble sale the ordinary photographer will emerge with a totally competent record of the event - the PJ will come away with a human interest story and a photograph that virtually speaks words.
We've got a lot of people calling themselves PJs, very few actually have the faintest idea of what it's all about.
One final word if I may. There's a lot of talk around about 'Citizen Journalists', frankly if they come-up with better work/stories/pictures than the so called professionals, good luck to them - it simply means we're not trying hard enough.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS