Re: [Leica] Photo whores {was Life magazine} vs word herders

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Hi Eric,

You have snipped parts of my post that put in perspective the paragraph
you are reacting against. As a professional editor (chief editor should
I add) and a person with a passion for photography, I live a sort of a
double life. 

The status of photographic material does vary, depending on the type of
magazine or newspaper we are talking about. A glossy sports magazine, a
prestigious travel magazine, an interior decoration magazine, a high end
fashion magazine, a serious news magazine, etc, will use photographic
material in a different way to that of a technically oriented IT
magazine, a stock market magazine, a consumerist magazine, a medical
magazine, a local gossip magazine, etc, etc. I would add catalogues,
corporate leaflets, advertisement to the list as well, on a different
level of communication.

But it is likely that photographic material will be used all over. The
exact same things could be said regarding text, which you erroneously
oppose to pictures in your post subject line.

It is therefore not correct to believe that photography AS SUCH deserves
in all cases more - or less - recognition or attention than any of the
other elements involved in editing (text, infography, cartoons, etc).
There are forms of perfectly respectable professional photography that
are exclusively oriented towards the objective of providing useable
illustrations to a large array of media.


In the case of my magazine, which is specialized in IT, photographs are
required to show objects (printers, copiers, PCs, etc) or people (CEO of
this or EDP manager of that). As an editor, I favour images with "loads
of colours" for objects and of "sufficient" quality for people (I try to
avoid ugly P&S flash snapshots as much as possible). For the rest I do
not care: the readers, publisher, interviewed persons, suppliers,
advertisers are the decisive parties. My professional requirements are
thus quite low on some of the main aspects of the photographic process.
And I probably often invest more attention to the quality of the screen
shot of a tested software or to the readability of product tables. 

As a keen photographer, I find nothing interesting in the pictures I
publish as an editor (except my own of course ;-)  )

Regarding your point of view, I have no wish to diminish the merits of
the cases you mention. They are on a different level, where radical
emotions are the order of the day. And I totally respect the
photographers who obtain the reactions you describe. But, just to bother
you, I would suggest that to the eyes of an active speculator, a well
designed pie chart might often have much more weight (and provoke more
emotions) than the best high quality b/w Leica portrait of the richest
shareholder of Minnesota  ;-)


Friendly regards,
Alan,
Brussels-Belgium

PS  BTW, my main language is French, my work as an editor is in French,
so you might excuse the mediocre level of my written English...

Eric Welch wrote:
> 
> At 10:41 AM 7/8/98 +0200, you wrote:
> 
> >illustrations (pictures included) are good. I'd suggest a little
> >modesty: in my professional eyes, pictures are just a part of the
> >illustrative material of a column, with no less and no more importance
> >than computer generated graphics and screenshots. Of course in my
> 
> That is what's wrong with the publishing industry. Attitudes that don't
> understand the power of photography. We fight it every day, in a world of
> non-visual professionals. They put down the power of photography, because
> there's nothing they can do that can match it - when it's done right.
> 
> I'd like to see the infographic that helped turn America against the
> Vietnam war like Eddie Adams' picture of General Lo shooting the Vietnamese
> suspect in the head. I'd like to see the chart that makes one feel like
> Gene Smith's "Pieta of Japan" from his Minimata Essay/Book. I'd like to see
> the screenshot that moved a teacher to give money to a family that takes
> them out of the homeless shelter, puts clothes on the kids backs, gets them
> a new apartment to live in, enrolls the mother in college and get her a
> job, and feeds them three meals a day like a picture I took about 9 years
> ago of a little girl looking out the window of that shelter.
> 
> Photography usage is exactly damaged by such attitudes, and is the reason
> the publishing industry has been headed in the direction of the toilet for
> the last 20 years. Word herders who are afraid of the power of photography
> overshadowing their own work, often a minor work of fiction masking as
> reportage. They resent our ethical standards, that make them seem lax in
> their own. What more can I say?
> 
> Boy, you set me off on that one. If you meant to put a smiley face on it,
> sorry.
> --
> 
> Eric Welch
> St. Joseph, MO
> http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch
> 
> My computer's sick. I think my modem is a carrier.