Comments on: Future proofing photojournalism http://www.petecarr.net/blog/2010/02/05/future-proofing-photojournalism/ Things that I do Wed, 05 May 2010 20:44:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: ivan wentland http://www.petecarr.net/blog/2010/02/05/future-proofing-photojournalism/comment-page-1/#comment-203 ivan wentland Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:01:57 +0000 http://www.petecarr.net/blog/?p=172#comment-203 I don't mean for this to sound mean or negative to anyone. However, it seems that "amateurs talk about gear and professionals talk about light". Not that you can't talk about gear or cameras I just think you get to a point that you have a vision and the rest is really just the lighting. I don’t mean for this to sound mean or negative to anyone.
However, it seems that “amateurs talk about gear and professionals talk about light”. Not that you can’t talk about gear or cameras I just think you get to a point that you have a vision and the rest is really just the lighting.

]]> By: Mark McNulty http://www.petecarr.net/blog/2010/02/05/future-proofing-photojournalism/comment-page-1/#comment-200 Mark McNulty Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:30:14 +0000 http://www.petecarr.net/blog/?p=172#comment-200 I can see where you're coming from on this one only I don't think we should be comparing 5mp Nokia phones with John Thomson's plate glass work. Whilst some news reporters may be carrying phones that take photos for grab shots to go online and even at times in the papers themselves, this is only an indication of the way things are going in the newspaper industry. Paper sales are on the way out to some extent, and from an environmental point of view that's not a bad thing, but I don't think we should be looking at newspapers to be the saviours of our visual history. And for the most part, the majority of newspapers whether on or offline will carry on using pro photographers with pro gear because most photographs need to hold a narrative which a member of the public with a mobile phone is not going to achieve. Personally, I shoot on everything from phones to 12mp slrs with a large archive of film. The film is constantly being scanned and both the scans and current digital work are often backed up via numerous drives and discs to make sure that they are there, should anybody be interested, in the future. At the same time, all over the world, people are doing the same. They store low res on the internet on various websites, and some even store high up there, and all kinds of sizes are backed up in many ways offline. With regards to pioneers like John Thomson, how many more like him had their glass plates smashed or lost or degraded in the last 100+ years? If it had been digital, and backed up, I think we would get to see even more of history so I'm not too worried about our present being preserved for future generations. i think it's doing ok as it is. Aside from that there are still people today who work like John Thomson. Have you seen Simon Norfolk's photographs of Afghanistan which he took on a massive big wooden camera? And I'm sure there are plenty more who still wander the world, with quality gear, documenting lands and people and events because that's what they want to do or feel they have to do. And I think that will always carry on. And what do we lose if a few journalist's mobile photos of Cheryl Cole won't blow up to a metre high print in 2150? Anyway, you're only using it as an excuse to yourself for wanting to buy a Leica! ;-) I can see where you’re coming from on this one only I don’t think we should be comparing 5mp Nokia phones with John Thomson’s plate glass work. Whilst some news reporters may be carrying phones that take photos for grab shots to go online and even at times in the papers themselves, this is only an indication of the way things are going in the newspaper industry. Paper sales are on the way out to some extent, and from an environmental point of view that’s not a bad thing, but I don’t think we should be looking at newspapers to be the saviours of our visual history. And for the most part, the majority of newspapers whether on or offline will carry on using pro photographers with pro gear because most photographs need to hold a narrative which a member of the public with a mobile phone is not going to achieve.

Personally, I shoot on everything from phones to 12mp slrs with a large archive of film. The film is constantly being scanned and both the scans and current digital work are often backed up via numerous drives and discs to make sure that they are there, should anybody be interested, in the future. At the same time, all over the world, people are doing the same. They store low res on the internet on various websites, and some even store high up there, and all kinds of sizes are backed up in many ways offline. With regards to pioneers like John Thomson, how many more like him had their glass plates smashed or lost or degraded in the last 100+ years? If it had been digital, and backed up, I think we would get to see even more of history so I’m not too worried about our present being preserved for future generations. i think it’s doing ok as it is.

Aside from that there are still people today who work like John Thomson. Have you seen Simon Norfolk’s photographs of Afghanistan which he took on a massive big wooden camera? And I’m sure there are plenty more who still wander the world, with quality gear, documenting lands and people and events because that’s what they want to do or feel they have to do. And I think that will always carry on. And what do we lose if a few journalist’s mobile photos of Cheryl Cole won’t blow up to a metre high print in 2150?

Anyway, you’re only using it as an excuse to yourself for wanting to buy a Leica! ;-)

]]>