POY and World Press Photo contests

This year's POY and World Press Photo contests were gruesome to look at, for the most part. This depiction of misery isn't some phase, however, it is life in today's society. If you look back at the stability of the economy and then compare it to the pictures of that time period, you will notice a trend. When things in the economy and society are going well, the pictures tend to convey happier subjects. When things in the economy and society are not so well, say being in two wars and having a huge federal deficit, the subject matter tends to be more gloomy and misery laden. That is why the winning pictures of this year's photo contests are mostly of misery and death. On the same note, there is discussion floating around about how some of the pictures were taken, like using an iphone or taking pictures off the internet from Google's photo van. Using an iphone, or any camera phone, is okay, but the picture quality is not going to be as good, but that is the risk you take for using that type of camera. And I don't think you can call yourself a professional, because anyone can use a camera phone, but it takes a professional to use today's DSLR's. Taking photos from Google's photo van, however, is equivalent to stealing in my book. It is also like plagiarizing. You didn't take the pictures, you stole them off the internet from someone else and called them yours, therefore you should not get the credit. Anyone, for the most part, can screen capture an image off a computer; again, it does not make you a professional. I think people will do anything these days to get there's names published, but it does not mean they deserve it.

Photojournalism: Then and Now

The 1940s, 50s, and 60s are considered to be the peak eras in photojournalism, with LIFE Magazine being THE place you wanted to get published. Today, things are a little different. When photojournalism first emerged, there were no rules as to what you could and could not do with a photograph; today, the only "editing" you're allowed to do is basic color, brightness, and contrast correction-anything more could get you fired. The internet has also changed photojournalism alot, with anyone being allowed to publish things online; you have to be one of the best to get your pictures published in print these days. Being a photojournalist today is hard; you have to think of new ways to do things, and a lot of the time if the pictures aren't of celebrities or well-known leaders, the public tends not to care. Strictly comparing images of the 40s, 50s, and 60s to today also shows how much photojournalism has changed. Back then, there were a lot of photographs of the wars in every publication; today, we are in two wars, and there are hardly ever any photos, online or in print. It just goes to show how the times have changed. To make a career out of photojournalism today, you have to not only be the best, you have to want it. If you are not willing to fight to get the pictures people want to see, there is no point in trying to be a photojournalist in today's world.

"Snap Judgement " Article

So, last night I was hanging out with my friends; looking at magazines, gossiping, eating, the usual, when I came across an article in Allure magazine that caught my eye-"Snap Judgment", written by Augusten Burroughs. Its about how he (Burroughs) takes pictures of himself everyday to help him understand who he is. Its a really interesting article and I encourage you to read it if you get the chance. Its from Allure Magazine October 2010, page 136. Burroughs talks about how people may think he's weird because he studies photographs of himself, but don't we do this numerous times a day, when we look in the mirror? Except a mirror is different, because when you walk away from it, you usually forget what you see, until you look again, and perhaps see something different. With a photograph, as Burroughs says, you see you exactly as you were at that moment in time, and you can always refer to it later. As a photo major, the article was very interesting and got me thinking, about self-portraits, self reflection, etc. Again, I encourage you to read it, and as you do really think about what the author says, "If you take the camera out of the picture, so to speak, is self-examination so odd?"