Saturday, June 4, 2016

Pre-digital Technology

Photojournalism has come a long way because of the advancements in technology. What rocketed a photograph’s ability to be spread and produced to the masses is the innovation of digital techniques. In the beginning, the process to develop photographs caused a great hindrance to the productivity of photojournalists. Originally the process was called the wet plate collodion process. Wet plates prevented photojournalists from accomplishing what they can today. Mainly because one could not take a picture quickly. As Professor Nordell pointed out, if there was not enough exposure, a subject would have to stay very still for minutes for enough light to show up and for it not to be blurry. Photojournalists do not want subjects to pose or be staged, they want to capture things immediately.
Portable Dark room
Photo By: William Micklethwaite
Image Source:

As described in the video by Quinn Jacobson, the wet plate process had about 6 steps but each was important and critical for the quality of the final product. First, you have to cut the glass to the right size. Clear glass is used for negatives and black glass is used for positives. Then, the glass need to be deburred, or basically roughed up on the edges so that fingers do not get cut as well as, to create a ridge to hold the film. Then, the glass needs to be cleaned well or later, the emulsion will peel. Next, the chemical solution, collodion, needs to be poured on the plate evenly. This will affect how many defections will appear in the photo. When the collodion has set, it is sensitized by being dropped into liquid silver nitrate for a few minutes.
After the plate is prepared, it is ready to be exposed to take the picture. How long depends on how much light there is, and this is something that a photographer really needs to have experience in to have it come out the way they intend. After exposure, the plate needs to be develop, which once again, takes experience because it could be under or over developed and after all that time and work, a picture can be ruined. Even after that, the plate needs to be fixed with potassium cyanide to turn it from a bluish negative to an amber positive.
This complicated process prevented photojournalists from really having the freedom and ease to concentrate solely on the message of their photos because they had to worry about the techniques. Not only did the steps have to be performed correctly, but in a time limit. The wet plate could not dry or else the picture would not turn out. This gave the photographer about ten minutes and was also limiting because they could not necessarily always travel with a portable dark room for which the process required.
One famous example of the difficulty of wet plates was Robert Capa’s pictures during the D-Day invasion. A darkroom technician dried the film too quickly and most of them were ruined, leaving less than a dozen out of 106 to document that legendary day, despite the danger Capa put himself in to take many good pictures.

The other day, I took a picture just because it came to mind.
 My sister was acting as younger sisters do, being weird outside my door. I thought it was funny because she looked so creepy to me, and I quickly took a picture. I didn’t have to think about how the technology worked, or make any other effort than deciding to take a picture, pulling up an app on my smartphone, and pressing a button. We take for granted how much we have been able to learn from the world because photojournalists can quickly capture images that are important for us to know about, many being in the heat of the moment.

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Can Photographs Change the World?

To answer the question, “Can photographs change the world”, yes, they can. However, not directly or literally. A photograph will not cure world hunger. A photograph will not stop a war. A photograph will not stop pollution. But a photograph might affect someone’s attitude on an issue; it could inspire concern for a situation; or it can reveal a part of the world that was once unknown to someone. Anyone once of these instances could end with that, or they could lead to a domino effect that could indeed change the world. A revelation takes a life of its own when it is shared with others and acted on.

Many people argue that words have more power. Would they actually, if they were not seen or heard? Would Darwin’s Theory of Evolution changed people’s understanding of the world if it was never published so that it could be shared? Of course not. Neither pictures nor words directly have an effect on anything. What causes change is the ideas that these tools spark in the minds of men. I agree with Jonathan Klein, of Getty Images, when he said, “It’s not the photographer who makes the photo, it’s you. We bring to each image, our own values, our own belief systems, and as a result of that, the image resonates with us.” What we think about an image is what drives us to make the decision that something needs to be addressed.

One picture that I think reflects this idea is the photo of Anne Frank. Viewing the picture without any context would not mean anything. However, knowing that this was an intelligent girl who might have had a lot of potential in life, and that her life was unjustly caused to end because of the Holocaust, the viewer has a different reaction. There is now a face attached to the story, making it more personal. As quoted in the introduction to Life’s 100 Photographs That Changed the World, a fan, Jacob Meade argues, “The poignancy of her gaze haunts the world to this day, pointing up the horror of Hitler’s genocide and making us wonder how many brilliant young women such as herself were lost.” So the photo itself has not changed anything, but it will make someone think about how horrible peoples can act toward each other, the consequences of our actions, and the limits that man creates for himself by ending the lives of those who could have made great contributions to our world. This will, hopefully, prevent us from making the same mistakes, and cause us to consider different solutions to problems.

An important thing to consider when realizing that a photograph itself does not change the world, is the fact that, many photographs are censored and kept away from the public eye, and so, will never have an effect. For example, when photos of war were shown on the news during the Vietnam War, there were many protests and public reaction forced the government to pay attention to the people and alter its course of action. Unfortunately, there are less protesters and many pay less attention to the wars America is currently engaged in. There is much less personal connection. Americans are not exposed to the suffering of those in other countries like they were during the Vietnam War. Photos from current wars are viewed by the government before being shown to American citizens. As Ted Rall puts it in his article, “Censorship of war casualties in the US”, “images from these ‘real’ wars have been studiously sanitised to the point that a well-informed news consumer could be excused for thinking that their country's latest wars are virtually bloodless.” There is much less personal connection. There is less evidence provided that would normally cause outrage, and in effect, change.

Another limit to the potential of photographs is media consolidation by big businesses. What this means is that any actions for issues that might conflict with corporate interests will never be started, simply because these corporations will prevent anyone from even being exposed to them. As described by Ashley Lutz, of Business Insider, 90% of American media is owned by 6 companies, meaning “232 media executives control the information diet of 272 million Americans.” This should worry Americans because while they think they could be getting news, what they are really getting is, in reality, propaganda for whatever these companies think is important, or for their affiliates. This is directly influencing what Americans perceive as truth.

All in all, photographs only change the world when they are viewed and reflected on by a person. A photograph that has an effect on me is “Perak Ladies at Thikse Monastery”. It makes me wonder what this culture is like and how these women live. It changes my idea of travel, appreciation of different ways of life, and inspires me to think outside of the box for my goals in the future.
Photo By: Jimmy Nelson

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

History of Photojournalism

 A good picture can connect with an audience in a powerful way to reveal truth and is not influenced by the barriers of language. Photojournalism is an important category of photography that is timely and informative. It is a critical tool for people to connect with real-world issues, events, or society.  Valuable information through photographs can broaden ones understanding of the world and the different cultures in it. Pictures are unbiased and taken with ethical integrity. As Professor Nordell describes, photojournalism captures verbs – things that are happening- more often than just subjects. Photojournalism is photography that tells a news story. It will have aspects of timeliness, objectivity, and narrative.
The history of photojournalism is important to know to give relevance on why it is important today. According to photographer Rachel Towne, photojournalism began in the 19th century with the Crimean War with photographer, Carol Szathmari. It can also be recognized from early use in the American Civil War by Mathew Brady. This was the beginning of the ability to reveal important situations to a broader audience.  Photojournalism really saw its expansion with the invention of the 35mm Leica camera in 1925. Many journalists were able to seize accurate portrayals of people’s lives for others to be aware of as in, for example, the Great Depression. Knowing the history helps one to “appreciate multiple perspectives and interpretations”, as Joanna Hayes illustrates in her video, "Why Study History?".  This is so important for people to develop compassion and try to have develop more successful strategies to handle real-world problems.
What is also important to recognize about the history of photojournalism, is the photojournalists themselves, and recognizing the skill and dedication that it took for people to capture moments that would illustrate news to the public. This relates to what photojournalists are doing today because they have to be able to know current topics and what is newsworthy.  Professor Nordell describes that photojournalists need to really have encompassed the skills of both a photographer and a journalist. They need an artistic eye to be able to get a powerful image and the courage to get up close and personal to get a meaningful one.
Photojournalism captures not only societal issues or norms, but captures cultures from all around the world to bring us all together. For example, here is a picture from Jimmy Nelson from the Hartmann Valley in Namibia.
Photo by : Jimmy Nelson

Nelson is a respected photojournalist who will preserve the essence of rare peoples. He has photographed and made a book about these people that documents their traditions and cultures. This an invaluable asset for the average person to have an appreciation for what is out in the world that he or she would never know about.
Now, with digital images, the ability to capture and spread photo-journalistic images has become even easier. With that, it provides a greater opportunity for these striking photos to have an impact on an audience. Hopefully, they might change the masses to take action for issues or simply provide a more fulfilling understanding of the news that is covered.
With the advancement of technology in photography, there is an essential need for photojournalists to really encompass the spirit of a journalist. Pictures can be retouched and manipulated in ways that completely falsify the context. It is up to the journalist to take pride that his publications remain truthful and unbiased. For example, Paul Hansen’s picture of two Palestinian boys who were being carried to a funeral is extremely powerful. It won the 2013 World Press Photo of the Year. Many claimed that it was a fake. Hansen firmly held that it was only retouched for lighting.  With review, the World Press confirmed it was authentic. The award is well deserved because the picture illustrates the reality of the innocents who suffer in unstable regions.