Well.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Nov 26, 2003 8:42 pm

Gregory E. Favre of the Poynter "leadership and management faculty" remembers "the days when the photography department, as well as the art department, were erroneously looked on as service departments. Serving at the will and whim of the word folks. How arrogant. How wrongheaded." (Poynter)***At the risk of starting a war, and meaning no offense toward my friends in "art" and photography, I might suggest that doing what "the word folks" need done is precisely what those departments are for. I knew something was amiss the first time a photographer tried to refuse to show me his negatives.***

RimRat · **Posted:** Wed Nov 26, 2003 8:50 pm

Ah, well ... but speaking as someone who has been on both sides of a camera, I used to hate it when some dumbass reporter, just out of J-school or whatever, introduced me as "this is my photographer". I took great pride in being a two-way man, and never thought one job was more important than the other, except when the occasion demanded it (ie sometimes the photo took precedence, sometimes the words). As a matter of interest, if a photog asked to see the rough draft of a story, what would you say?Now, of course, I'm an editor and hate all of them.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Nov 26, 2003 9:17 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by RimRat:
If a photog asked to see the rough draft of a story, what would you say?<hr></blockquote>***Not the same thing, of course. Anyhow, I was asking as an editor. What the photographer "offers" and what the newspaper needs often are different. ***

RimRat · **Posted:** Wed Nov 26, 2003 9:58 pm

As an editor, of course you're allowed to ask. In fact, as an editor, there are times it would be mandatory. I thought you meant something else, obviously.But I disagree about you dismissing the analogy entirely. Photogs cull their negatives (or whatever passes for them in these days of digital cameras) for the same reason reporters massage stories -- to make sure only the best gets into print. The only time I'd let someone look over my shoulder while writing was when I was filing take by take on deadline. And my objection to dismissing photogs as mere tools of the word people stands.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Nov 26, 2003 11:32 pm

I'm not dismissing anyone. But, yes, if I'm the editor I decide what pictures are used, not the photographer.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Thu Nov 27, 2003 12:22 am

Quite right. Newsrooms are not a democracy, detachment improves selection. That said, there's nothing wrong in substantially delegating image choice to a photographic person.

thmrit · **Posted:** Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:04 am

But too often a photag's choice isn't the best choice for the paper. I'm reminded of episode of the Mary Tyler Moore story, where the cameraman shootsan anthill next to fire, but not the fire, to show that despite the turmoil around them life goes on. Too often it seems like photag's act like the job of photojournalist interfers with their preferred career as a painter with light. Anyone who has had to figure out how to pull together a page with art that only remotely connects to the story knows that you can't trust a photag.

KfitzR · **Posted:** Thu Nov 27, 2003 10:55 am

I recall a photog, sent to an early morning, winter hotel fire in Regina, Sask. , who stopped en route to get shots of the dawn light hitting the hoar frost on the trees. Bad judgement on photog's part.
Also going with a photog in Winnipeg to an apartment, where the photog's assignment was to get a picture of a smell. Bad judgement on city editor's part.

RimRat · **Posted:** Thu Nov 27, 2003 6:02 pm

Who said anything about newsrooms and democracy? Gad. I was only trying to make a point about ... oh, never mind.

Testy Copy Editors

Well.

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links