This is all good stuff , good questions , good debates . We argue about it all the time . I suspect these thoughts are echoed across this vast land. I remember arguing about these issues from the first day I walked into a newsroom. I also suspect these long standing issues cause most of the background stress photographers carry with them everyday they work in this brand of journalism. It is the reason many leave.
There is also the issue that photos and word content are not on a level playing field . For some editors ,pictures can be used out of context or manipulated to fit a story . Selection of a head shot is a common usage. The pictures should be seen in the same way word content is seen . It is information , and this information can be used as evidence , it is an accurate record . It is simply the only verifiable content that is trusted from old archived newsprint over the last 150 years . It doesn't get the respect because nothing is said when things get sloppy .
I argue in favour of the use of the photographers name crediting every photo . The photo did not take itself and if they are re-using a photo it will often appear bigger the second and third time around . There is a curious practice of calling photo , not shot that day a file photo , staff photo or archive photo . There are those who feel that these terms should be used when a picture is “old” .
The purpose of the photo credit is to denote credit to whom ever took it , it has nothing to do with how old the photo is. I feel very strongly about this because , sadly , photographer names are being taken off photos for an ever increasing number of reasons .
There are failures in production chains that cause the name of a photographer to not be known at the time of the layout of a page .Curiously it never happens to reporter content , but the id is dropped because it is defensive and / or lazy or "timed out", on deadline . Defaulting to a generic term is a common excuse .
If the picture is old , the caption should say ,photo taken two years ago or use the exact date it was taken . Some times “old” photos are used out of context or represent a bias . The reason a particular photo is used has meaning that may have ethical implications . They may just be the only photos available.
In any case all becomes clear if you apply the same rules that apply to word content. Those in power usually do not consider this comparison , but will understand the issue if it has this context.
Photo credit simply credits the person who took the picture and not to indicate it 's age .
Id'ing one or two persons who stands out in an exceptional way avoids the mine field of crazy spelling's of people who are not prominent , central or quoted in the story . If there are persons at the centre of the action of the photo then I think it is OK to ID the smaller set within the group . Names and titles often take up more space than a story. We go out of our way to offend people and fill up correction boxes with over id'ed captions . A name of a teacher with her class is a good example . I have argued that these pictures and those like them should not be in the paper in the first place.
I have argued any set up picture , for a story should be dumped if a more visual stand alone photo is available .Do I win these arguements ? change comes very , very slowly . I have seen change in a substantial way . Not speaking , means no change.
Editing online pictures ? , not sure what is meant by this . But pictures, stdups , caption only community events , weather events that will not make the paper because of space limitations , especially , Monday , Tuesday , Wednesday , and sometimes Thursday , Friday and Saturday. But never on a SUNDAY!
Also stdups photos with no people , macro , or cool street scenes , editorial still life , are nice to shoot and display but have no direct news value are an important expansion of photography . People like the visual and they expand the range of photography in the online product and paper as they will cross over more often than not.
"Photo illustration" credit should always be used . The problem is that the caption info usually does not accompany a photo used for design purposes , it is stripped off many stages prior. When the photo is manipulated who gets the credit ?, does anyone want the credit ? Photog and designer should if we apply a consistent rule applied to reporter content ,a double byline and it credit is never missed even if it is shared .
The design tool is often an excuse not to credit a photog. A close cut picture running on the page edge from the top of a page to the bottom should be credited to the photographer .
Sometimes the photo is identified from right to left if the photo was built that way . If the contour of the photo has a dominant subject at the right and trailing off and getting smaller ,secondary subjects should be Id'ed RtoL as a rare exception.
I feel if these issues are argued in an open productive way , the newspaper business will move forward . The classic newspaper photo of the 1950's gave way to the realism of the 60, 70's and 80's.
There is a trend to the construction of photo illustration , and manipulated moments that is bordering on commercial design .
When you look at mass culture and mass photography there is a great deal of creativity and opportunism colliding with the sheer speed of transfer that is overwhelming anything we may try to hold onto.
The idea of respect cannot be confused with the concept of coping with traditional approaches to journalism and reporting . Then there is speed . Free photographers inside the walls of the newsroom fortress , it is not rocket science.
Topic: Picture on the wall (Read 1384 times)