My concern; my plea is directed to the youngsters who are coming into the business now. I have always been concerned because I see so much lack of discipline in the newer breed of newspaper photographer. Motor drives and 36 exposure rolls have created a total disregard for the concentration and discipline that was required in the days of the Speed Graphic, where one had to make sure that all of the elements of a good photograph were in place before the shutter was released. The first thing that one of us dinosaurs did when we walked into a room, was to scan the place for a clean background so that we didn't have flower vases and picture frames sprouting out of the subject's head. And it was done instinctively after awhile. Now, I see the new guys on the street come into the room with their motor drives blazing and they do a 360 degree walk around the room, and somewhere in the resulting 36 exposures ( or more) they think they have a picture. Imagine, if you will, someone like this being handed a video camera and turned loose on an assignment. Now they have a motor drive with 20 minutes of tape and how would you like to be the editor who has to find the one frame which will go into the paper?

One last point and then class is dismissed. I have found that there is a totally different mind-set involved when shooting stills as compared to video. Most newspapers require that one still photograph contain all of the story telling elements. More often than not, there will be only one photo to go into the paper with the story. So, a newspaper photographer has to get everything relevant to that story in one shot. And if the photographer has any talent, he/she will make it a compelling photograph as well as a relevant photograph.

The video photographer, on the other hand, needs to draw out the scene to fill a certain amount of time and can zoom and pan to the various elements that tell the story. It takes an entirely different thought process to be successful at either. And I'm not sure that the same person can do both.

For example, still photographers know that some scenes and subjects compose better as verticals rather than horizontals. Try doing that with a video camera. I have a friend who has been in tv most of her adult life. When we shoot snapshots together it is like pulling teeth to get her to shoot a vertical. She just never saw life in that format.

Halstead’s Platypus theory is something that we should heed. Today's press photographers had better learn mullet media if they want to compete in a shrinking job market.

But, I cry out my plea to those very photographers and especially the editors and publishers who will be implementing these changes now and in the future. Do not stray too far from the techniques of good photography that have been learned over the decades lest we forego quality in our publications in the name of progress. Thank you and goodnight.

Photo by Randy Sakomoto -- Amy Bowers is an independent Field Producer, Living in Tijeras, New Mexico and is a Contributiiong Columnist to the Digital Journalist A Multimedia Magazine For Photojournalism in the Digital Age

IN RESPONSE
by Amy Bowers
Freelance Television
Field Producer
Tijeras, NM

Dick, Thank you for the the advance copy of yournew journal, it was very compelling. I have no argument with it at all. I'm sure you realize that when tv photogs shoot, they strive for "sequences." That's because tv story-telling, as you suggested, unfolds over a period of time. The variety of shots reinforce and build on each other.

I think that video can be shot to resemble the human mind analyzing a situation while simultaneously taking in details plus the big picture. Editors call this "coverage," and the different sequences are known as "elements" or story elements.

Wide shot, close-up, reverse angle, insert, cut-away, locator. Those are your basics, Pix, on any story, including spot news and breaking news. Then there is the so-called B-roll footage, which establishes other elements, or shows other sequences. This is the basic stuff, it's not hard to learn.

Have you forgotten the very essential element of sound? A still photograph, as you noted, has to tell the entire story. But in video, the subject can tell the story in words. We call this "sound on tape", or the over-used term known to all, but understood by fewer, the "sound bite."

A subject's sound can be recorded in the form of an interview, or it can be gathered as "actuality," recorded without interfering with the subject. Tv techs are trained to listen for sound, because the words have to be there on tape, and make sense. So the tv journalist is an interviewer, and a verite observer. Hey, maybe that's why tv crews sometimes consist of two or three people!!

Dick, a good photog is a good photog, and electronic photography also requires good composition. In fact, tv does not routinely crop or dodge anything, so it's the cameraperson's responsibility to produce clean pictures. My mentor Jack Borden used to encourage me to make "every frame a Rembrandt." No reason not to.

Dick, you got my number on horizontal composition. All I can say is that I see the world the way the tv Gods intended, and I am furiously re-programming myself to the 16x9 widescreen view of the world. This, of course, is easy for me, living in Wide Screen country, where the world does not consist of tall buildings that run out of frame like they do in your part of the world.

One last question, my single-framing friend, where will this Platypus carry the lights? In its mullet?

Dick, if Halstead could contrive the Platypus, maybe you could coin the Mullet. It already is "scaled" back, has no teeth, and provides a use for the newspaper.

Amy Bowers