Photographers as Artists,

I wish I was a great photographer. Great photography adds to a story. Or sometimes a picture tells it all.

Other times, a photo just does the job, much like a six-inch meeting story. It's not pretty, but fills space.

 

"Art" is a newspaper and magazine term that can refer to more than a photo. It isn't worth going off on a rant about, except maybe if you've been in the business about 15 minutes and are craving a history lesson -- and figure the only way to get it is by posting a message-board cry for help.

 

This.

 

All right, go for it.

 

Industry jargon we can all agree to ridicule: use of the term "the talent" by our TV friends. With a straight face, even.

And kid, I'm sure you've got some real pros to learn from at your place. Don't waste the opportunity by speaking when you should be listening and paying more attention.

(Edited so I can apologize to my friends in TV who are genuinely talented, but ... come on ... the talent? Really? )

Point being, every industry has jargon. This is one such case. It's nothing to get bent out of shape about.

 

Where I work, I've had more than one no-hitter without art of the pitcher. I had two QBs combine for nearly 900 yards passing against each other, yet the photog came back with running backs and tackles. Not a single shot of either QB. And then, we are not allowed to crop their photos in any way.
Quantity is fine for the photo gallery on the web site. Artistic is fine for the calendar you put out once a year. The front page, and the inside pages, are crying for compelling photos that tell the story of the game. We write our gamers about the key aspects of the game, shouldn't the photos do the same? When the photos don't convey any feeling of what happened, is it OK to write 15 inches about the basketball player who scored six meaningless points in a 72-43 win? No. So why do I want a photo of that guy dribbling (and his shadow) when his teammate, averging eight a game, scores a career-best 31, including three monster dunks?

 

This.

It's a no-brainer to get photos of the pitcher on the mound, a routine throw to first base, the coach/manager for both teams and batters. Take a bunch. Digital allows that much easier today.

It's just like in football - get the quarterback, ball-carrier, some tackles and the coach on the sideline. In basketball, the coach and a kid shooting free throws or a layup.

Anything else is gravy. But you should get the routine stuff first, just to be sure.

I've worked with photographers who didn't want me to suggest anything and I thought that was idiotic. Others have asked for suggestions and also had some good questions. I didn't mind a bit.

 

SixToe: Back in the dark ages of film cameras/darkrooms, my fallback shot was always some kid celebrating a touchdown, or a coach talking to his players. I figured I could at least get those in focus.

And I agree with all who have said good photogs DO ask if they should shoot a certain player/situation. The more communication between photog, writer and desk, the better for all involved.

 

Back when I was shooting, it was fun to get to assignments early.

That way I could introduce the reporter as my reporter.

 

A couple days late on the response, but yes I did call him back and got several pictures pronto. They were even better than what he turned in. It's just shocking (and frustrating) that he didn't turn them in in the first place.

 

I don't mind the lingo, except when the photog begins to think he actually is an artist and not a photog.

Like, say, when they're assigned to shoot a college baseball game and you watch them from the press box as they spend more time focusing on macro closeups of flowers growing on berm in just outside the fence than on what's happening on the field. Or almost gets whiplash from jerking away from a guy running the bases on a double to snap some photos of some geese flying about 50 feet above the bleachers.

Get the photos I need, then go shoot your gallery pieces on your own time.