Trying to Make an Image

To be perfectly honest, I was pretty frustrated at the Olympics.

Every photo agency in the MPC had video monitors outside of their offices showing the images that they produced throughout the games. Technically the images were very, very good. In fact, I'd say there has never been an Olympic games photographed at such a consistently high level.

Unfortunately, this high level of imagery is due more to the improvements in camera technology, not by any advancement in the vision of the photographers themselves.

I'm not saying that I did any better.

I often found myself photographing things the same way that I had twenty years ago. Now, there are a lot of restrictions at the Olympics, often moving three or four inches in any direction is not even an option. Also, not having a pool vest means that you are probably shooting thirty yards behind and over the heads of the guys that do (not to mention through the guys running around with TV cameras), but still no excuse.

Rob Haggart kind of sums up my feelings over at A Photo Editor today.

You see, the sports photographers (because they've done it a hundred times before) know where they are going to stand, and the pictures they can make from that spot. They've got the sports formula down. They know how to optimize their success rate in making what is considered a "successful" image in the editorial world.

A successful image is one that gets printed. That's the only criteria that counts these days (as far as the "industry" is concerned). 

I know I've been picking on the sports photographers lately, but this applies to all types of photography. One could make the exact same observation at the Democratic Convention taking place in Denver right now. Its not just sports, but in all of the editorial photography genres.

We've gone from making images to just simply taking pictures. 

The editorial market is imploding at an unbelievable rate. So far, the response has been to give the public more Kenny G while ignoring Miles Davis.

No wonder the images are forgettable and leave the viewer feeling... nothing.

Comments

[Wayne]

I'm not really that interested in sports or the Olympics but have certainly seen a lot of the photographs produced there in the last few weeks. From the peanut gallery, I have to agree with what you are saying. There are some remarkable /captures/ but most of the photos look the same and it's difficult looking through various galleries on various news sites to tell photographers apart.

Maybe it's due to the fact that most of the photographers are using either the Nikon or Canon system and there's no flash allowed, so the lighting is the same? What's strange is how the lighting often looks the same in different venues (swimming versus track and field), but perhaps all the stadiums were built at the same time and have the same lighting. Once again, I don't look at a lot of sports photography, but in general stadium lighting conditions make human skin look strange.

Also how many of the photographers at these events follow the sport before the Olympics? If everyone photographing say the javelin throw is new to that sport (and the players) then the obvious first impressions, as interesting as they sometimes are, will be what people shoot.

All that said, I like some of the work you have here, with the gymnasts or runners staring, in thought. Thanks for sharing!

[Yak yak]

Everyone has know that the evolution you speak of has been coming, but then again there's been neophite photographers for ever too, making a living all along. I guess, I just don't see your point. The business is about taking pictures (not making them) that then get published (your model of success, not mine) and the photographer gets paid for the service. It's not about trying to make a statement or to put a different bend on something that as you've said is a television event. Remember, it's an "event", nothing more nothing less. Sure there might be "pictures" and "moments" but nobody obviously cares about those things. So, "you" have to ask yourself, "is it worth it?"

Co Rentmeester wasn't there and I bet neither was Azel, the last two guys to make anything of the Olympic memorable. Wake up, you're living in a dead world...

The Yak yak theory of photography holds that there is exponentially less quality pictures made at an event like the Olympics each time the event is held. This being the XXIX games, I don't expect much but more of the same. Since events are really only "fresh" one time, the more times they're held the less likely we are to see "fresh" meaningful imagery. Even you find yourself not being fresh, you said it yourself. If that happens at the individual level, what about the corporate level where change is really slow, if ever? Thanks for trying though, out of 700GB you should be reasonably sure you got at least one moment made.

[Kenneth Jarecke]

Wayne,

Everything is completely regulated and pre-determined in the Olympic venues. Not just stuff like who's going to be allowed where, but the color temperature and amount of light that is going to fall onto the field of play.

There are also rules about which sports must be indoors at this point. So the last time we saw speed skating outside was during the Albertville Olympics. Which was great, because it was overcast with a slight rain.

Barcelona, the last time we'll ever have outdoor diving or swimming.

In Sydney, the swimming venue had really nice light coming in from huge windows on one side, but the windows were covered by ugly green fabric before any events.

Eventually this approach produces a pretty uniform feel to the whole thing.

These decisions were made because of TV, not for any sports related reasons. I heard today that the start of these games were dictated by NBC, not because of the lucky chinese number eight.

So what are you going to do? The event is still relevant. Amazing things happen in pretty much ever sport, everyday. Do we just walk away, or do we try to somehow capture what is really happening?

Maybe I come off as a complainer. That's fine. If I didn't care or didn't think that the Olympics are cool, I'd just keep quiet, or if I didn't believe that it was still possible to make amazing images (for that matter).

Its no secret that TV eventually destroys anything it has control over. Which is another advantage in being there as just an observer.

[More_of_the_same]

You're a craftsman plying your craft in an industry that for whatever reason is not interested in craftsmanship much these days. It should be, you're noble for standing up against it and reminding them all of their past, responsibilities, etc., but let's face it, it's a subjective industry. What does that word "subjective" mean exactly? It means in essence it's going to be swayed, one way or another. Market forces, trends, eras whatever, it's dynamic, it may never be the same or it may always be the same. That's a tough place to make a living unless to some degree you acquiesce (adapt may also fit here) to the trends too.

Taking a bigger picture approach to everything, Rush Limbaugh calls all of the "left leaning" media "the drive-by media". He's a jerk, but he just might be right. We're a drive-by, drive-up, drive-thru society, to be a craftsman at anything is to be "old" or "stodgy" and that's not necessarily seen as a good thing. So what can you do, make pictures in the ways you want to make pictures, try to educate (which you do) why something is of better quality than another thing, but ultimately also realize it's out of your hands and control. If it's a "dismal tide" as the Coen brothers call it in "No Country For Old Men" then that's what it is... An ever increasingly tough place to make a living though it may be.

It's tough watching things become irrelevant like laurels, principles, and even whole careers when you're whole existence, raison d'etre comes from the acceptance, opinions or publication by others. If I were you, I'd ignore that as much as possible and move to just producing good work and let the rest of the screwed up industry sort itself out. Besides with the advent of the Internet, you have more publishing control now than ever before, there's really little need for a print industry anymore, just do your thing and hang the stuff out on a site like this one If it's good, it'll catch fire, if not, then you'll have the honor of solo performing to a niche audience that recognizes your work and accomplishments for what they are. Read about Chris Anderson's "The Long Tail" and/or book. No, not the Magnum Chris Anderson...

[Wayne]

Kenneth, the interesting thing about your television comment is that often during the NBC coverage, when they were recapping wins and moments from the previous day (which was often since most everything was on delay) - they would use montages of still photos, rather than play recorded video. Especially for the moments after the win, they might show the few seconds of a close finish, but then for the reaction and the medal ceremonies they used stills with soft transitions.