-pop-quiz-about-staging-photos-in-photojournalism

[The_Traveler]

An excellent column with interesting links about this topic from Alex Garcia - Chicago PJ

A Pop Quiz about Staging Photos in Photojournalism Assignment Chicago

 

[runnah]

It raises good points for sure, my question for some of those examples would be "what does it hurt by staging some of the shots?"

I think for the most part it's easy to tell a genuine moment vs. a stage one.

 

[pgriz]

I believe some of the most iconic photographs have been staged: the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima(Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia), the sailor's kiss at the end of WWII (V-J Day in Times Square - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia - some claim that this was staged for Eisenstardt), the migrant's children (Dorothea Lange - Dorothea Lange - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia). In the end, telling the story usually trumps over the specific details. There seems to be a continuum in terms of how "real" the image is - from one extreme being the one where it really was taken on the spur of the moment, all to way to the other side where the image was fully staged, with details suppressed or eliminated if they did not support the story. I would like to believe that the images captured by photojournalists capture the key facts of whatever the image is of, but there's always a question in my mind as to how "real" the image is, even without considering photomanipulation.

 

[JustJazzie]

Well, Lew- Are you going to share your answers?!

 

[tirediron]

I believe some of the most iconic photographs have been staged: the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima(Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia), the sailor's kiss at the end of WWII (V-J Day in Times Square - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia - some claim that this was staged for Eisenstardt), the migrant's children (Dorothea Lange - Dorothea Lange - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia). In the end, telling the story usually trumps over the specific details. There seems to be a continuum in terms of how "real" the image is - from one extreme being the one where it really was taken on the spur of the moment, all to way to the other side where the image was fully staged, with details suppressed or eliminated if they did not support the story. I would like to believe that the images captured by photojournalists capture the key facts of whatever the image is of, but there's always a question in my mind as to how "real" the image is, even without considering photomanipulation.

Don't forget Macarthur's "triumphant" wading ashore in the Phillipine's.

Really though, if it's staged, isn't it, by definition, NOT photo-journalism?

 

[The_Traveler]

Well, Lew- Are you going to share your answers?!

Sure, this way people have a target.

1) The first question I wouldn't choose any of the options.
I'd let the boy walk me through his path and I'd let him point out the issues to me - and photograph that

2) B. This is what I saw and how it happened.

3) A.

4. B) and I'd state the circumstances, just like 1)

5) depends if it was them I was shooting or their situation - see #1

 

[vintagesnaps]

You don't stage a shot if you're covering news as it's happening. If it's a feature or for marketing purposes you might be doing some interacting/directing (examples below). Much of the time it's being able to gauge a situation and figure out quickly what to do because life isn't going to stop and wait.

I've done sports and events, during a game there's no staging. If they wanted a picture during intermission of the big cardboard check presentation I'd get shots of people smiling and posing with their giant check. Usually they'd be directed by staff where to stand, where to look, etc. and I'd photograph it as it happened.

And even though I've done shooting for marketing purposes, things happen fast in my experience. I've taken photos after a game such as at an autograph signing where players might be getting directed for a few posed shots but are mostly interacting with the fans. For me it was usually spontaneous (they like to ham it up for the camera).

#1 You've gotta figure out how to get something if they flew you all the way down there... get the path from a vantage point that shows how treacherous it would be, pictures of what the kid's life is like; I imagine this would be for a human interest in-depth article.

#2 Sounds like it's not a newsworthy happening but more like a press conference (and mostly a waste of time). Probably get some shots, get done, get out. Caption accordingly, you photographed what was happening (as ridiculous as it may have been), you don't present it as 'news' you present it as a press event (press/media were invited to visit the HQ...).

#3 Take the picture, probably not use it but you never know, might work for a feature. (See autograph signing above.)

#4 What's the problem? You let them know you'd be late, it's not a happening news event, it was prearranged, you're just going a little later than scheduled, do whatever you were going to do.

#5 Tell them to try to not act like the nitwit in #2. jk Haven't done this, probably would tell them to go ahead with whatever, chat a minute, start doing some framing etc. while they get used to you being there.

 

[pixmedic]

why wasn't there the option of shooting what you felt was the best images given the circumstances, and then explaining the circumstances along with the images? why do the choices have to be 1: don't get any shots or 2: get shots and lie about them. (even if by a lie of omission) They make it out to be so black and white.
in all of those scenarios, there could have been a mix of staged or partially staged shots mixed with actual "candids", and with a simple explanation to the viewers, "photojournalism" could have easily been achieved. It does not have to be "all or nothing" just because it is being called "journalism".