3 ms·

That's exactly what great photojournalism is, simply being there. Being in the right place at the right time often pays very well. The idea that great photos ar

That's exactly what great photojournalism is, simply being there. Being in the right place at the right time often pays very well. The idea that great photos are meticulously planned is, generally, incorrect. Most of the iconic photos of the 20th century were not in any way planned. John Filo, a photo j student at Kent State, won a Pulitzer for essentially being in the 'right place at the right time:' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Filo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Filo Another example: the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination, shot by a private citizen on a spring-wound Bell & Howell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film

spodek 15y ago
I'd never heard of John Filo before so I followed your link. His account implies his picture didn't result from merely being in the right place at the right time. - He had been shot at once (by a representative of his own government), began running (for his life?), but had the presence of mind to return and take pictures. - Being a photographer, he had useful equipment at the ready. Many other people were around, but they didn't have the equipment. This was 1970 -- not everyone had a camera in their pockets. - Being a photojournalism student, he may have sought and framed pictures differently than the average person. He said he was running out of film, implying he had to choose wisely. An untrained person may have run out of film or taken images that wouldn't become iconic. I'm not arguing for or against the main issues in this thread. I was just impressed by the photograph, what it took to take it, and wouldn't characterize it as the result of just being in the right place at the right time. Someone holding their ground when someone is shooting at them is ipso facto specifically choosing their place. Despite the disagreement on that characterization, thanks for sharing that link. I'm glad to have seen the photograph and learned the story.
- jrwoodruff 15y ago
  It is a great story, isn't it? But I think we're actually kind of agreeing on this, albiet from slightly different perspectives: >Someone holding their ground when someone is shooting at them is ipso facto specifically choosing their place. That's kind of the point I'm trying to make. It's not -necessairly - about the quality of equipment or technical training or 'meticulous' planning. More than any other single factor, it's about the photographer's location. Photojournalists are trained and paid to actively seek out news and choose their locations so they -might- be there to capture that perfect moment, but if someone with an iPhone just happens to be in that ideal spot instead, it doesn't mean their photo is worth any less. That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with giving away your photo, but I think people should be aware that, if they happen to find themselves in a newsworthy situation, they could choose to get paid for what they record, sometimes quite a bit.

spodek 15y ago

I'd never heard of John Filo before so I followed your link. His account implies his picture didn't result from merely being in the right place at the right time. - He had been shot at once (by a representative of his own government), began running (for his life?), but had the presence of mind to return and take pictures. - Being a photographer, he had useful equipment at the ready. Many other people were around, but they didn't have the equipment. This was 1970 -- not everyone had a camera in their pockets. - Being a photojournalism student, he may have sought and framed pictures differently than the average person. He said he was running out of film, implying he had to choose wisely. An untrained person may have run out of film or taken images that wouldn't become iconic. I'm not arguing for or against the main issues in this thread. I was just impressed by the photograph, what it took to take it, and wouldn't characterize it as the result of just being in the right place at the right time. Someone holding their ground when someone is shooting at them is ipso facto specifically choosing their place. Despite the disagreement on that characterization, thanks for sharing that link. I'm glad to have seen the photograph and learned the story.

jrwoodruff 15y ago
It is a great story, isn't it? But I think we're actually kind of agreeing on this, albiet from slightly different perspectives: >Someone holding their ground when someone is shooting at them is ipso facto specifically choosing their place. That's kind of the point I'm trying to make. It's not -necessairly - about the quality of equipment or technical training or 'meticulous' planning. More than any other single factor, it's about the photographer's location. Photojournalists are trained and paid to actively seek out news and choose their locations so they -might- be there to capture that perfect moment, but if someone with an iPhone just happens to be in that ideal spot instead, it doesn't mean their photo is worth any less. That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with giving away your photo, but I think people should be aware that, if they happen to find themselves in a newsworthy situation, they could choose to get paid for what they record, sometimes quite a bit.