Some thoughts on photojournalism

Before I start on this I would just like to say that these are just thoughts and opinions based on spur observations, people are complicated, and the world and the way it works even more so. I would never profess to assume anyone's intentions or to purposely be antagonistic, but there are some observations recently that have got me thinking about how we use imagery to tell a story and the ethics involved with this responsibility.
There is no doubt that imagery has massively informed modern communication and the subject of its value as a means of information delivery is far too vast to be discussed in a flippant thought based blog.
On the front page of the Guardian today was an image of a man who had just been informed by Malaysia Airlines (we are led to assume) that a close member of his family was almost certainly dead. He is obviously distraught - head in hands, tears streaming, features frozen in a contorted caricature of pain. But it was not the mans obvious distress that jumped out of this image at me, one of the things that I first noticed was the 5 or 6 other people taking pictures of him within the picture, some even on smart phones, suggesting they are simply interested in the mans lowest moment on a purely personal basis, maybe they were later to share these images, identifying themselves with this major world event.
What stood out even more was the obvious fact that the photographer had used a wide angle lens. This is not merely a technical observation - the choice of lens meant that the photographer had to be very close to the subject - probably less than a meter, it also means that the photographer was waiting and anticipating this moment, to capture this perfect immediacy of sorrow alongside the dozens of others waiting for this man to break so they could immortally preserve his pain.
What struck me most of all about this picture is the total lack of dignity given to this man in what will undoubtedly be the worst moment of his life, for what? To get the 'money shot' the image that most shows his breaking point? To sell papers? To make a living? This is someones job, to capture the most devastating moments of peoples lives, but not from a distance, from less than a meter away, multiple cameras surrounding the poor man while flashes freeze his tears. Is this where we are? A place where it is acceptable to throw a mans dignity to the side to capture a descriptive image for the world to comprehend the horror? Any normal person will understand the horror of this moment, more so by reading the details taken from a safe distance away from the embers of the mans hope. But we need immediacy, we need to see the horror before we understand it, we need to pick up the paper to look so we can understand why!?
I am sure that Don McCullin, Robert Capa and the multitude of photographers that have brought world events to our doorsteps over the years have had nothing but righteous intentions, but their lives were in danger, they made sacrifices on many levels to share events the world would otherwise never of seen or heard about. I cannot see them however waiting in an airport for a man to break on the inevitable news that members of his family are dead, this, to me, seems a step too far in the pursuit of a visual description.
There is no doubt that photojournalism is the most valuable form of photography, and has changed the world in which we live, often for the better, but it cannot be beyond account. Is it acceptable to sacrifice one mans dignity, to bulldoze into his darkest moment to share that with the world so that they can digest its consternation in seconds rather than minutes? Are our own valuable moments worth more than this mans worst? Or have we become so voyeuristic towards the horrors of others that we are numb to its effect?
I am sure papers were sold on the story, I am sure the photographer was paid and his family will eat this week, but the man he shot, the man whose bitter tears he could almost taste won't ever see some of his again. No picture will change that.

| LA |

Some thoughts on focus.

I spent most of my years during college in the early two thousands trying to make film look like most high end digital cameras look pretty much straight out of the back now. Super sharp, super clean, punchy. I am pretty sure I am not the only person now constantly trying to make my digital images look like most of my film work back then, the stupid irony is that whatever people are doing en-mass as a professional photographer we have to provide something different, something separate with its own identity. Even if it means sabotaging our own work. Back in the day your average persons pictures were soft, they had aberrations and light leaks, colours were odd and un-uniform, so we tried to provide sharp clear images that stood out, had clean uniform colour and crisp lighting. Now that this is achievable out of most peoples smart phones.
Increasingly I seem to prefer slightly soft digital images, since the advent of digital imaging, we have become increasingly obsessed with sharpness in images, and I am only just starting to wonder, why?
Understandably if you are shooting a product, or if there is a brand or logo that need attention sharpen the hell out of it until it makes you eyes bleed from simply looking. But when we look at portraits why does it have to be sharp? why do the eyes need to look as though the are made from cubic zircons? If a softness helps the image then why not? if the overall appearance is better for the approachability and sensitivity that softness can add then why have we made it so unacceptable to use it? Sharpness seems to have become a rule that we all abide by for the simple reason that it is a rule. As a professional photographer I know I am capable of getting an image sharp in (most) circumstances that are within my control. I am now reaching the point that it does not hurt my professional dignity to allow softness in my images, a slower shutter or a impossibly large aperture, sometimes even physical tools to create aberrations that add rather than take away from an image.
It has never ceased to be used in fashion photography, whether willfully or not. Fashion on most levels has always had the benefit of being able to cross the art - product boundary, and despite all of its misgivings often in the fashion world you are allowed an amount of artistic license over functionality.

Below is a shot I did for a fashion Magazine last week, it will not make the edit partly because it is soft and partly for other reasons, but it was by far my favorite image from this outfit, and probably the shoot. The softness adds to this image. I don't look at it and think 'the photographer fucked that up' I look at it and think that I see a lovely image. Maybe it is because I took it, or it might just be that I am going soft.

| LA |

Some thoughts on Branding

Branding has become our new religion. Too much? OK, agreed, but there are some similarities. We Identify ourselves through brands. We describe ourselves or who we think we are/would like to be by wearing, driving, drinking, eating and affiliating with brands that identify (or at least prescribe to) with our desired projection.
We appear to have become so comfortable with the idea of brand as identity that we have in many cases starting branding ourselves, mostly through online identities which seem to me to work on a business model of a projection or core values and objectives.
More so in the photography world in which much of my online presence resides. Constant updates of progress and success to keep hearts and minds certain not only of our existence, but our resounding success and popularity. To be quiet or struggling is the modern taboo.
As a photographer we are selling ourselves as well as our work. The constant self affirmations and political posting of otherwise insipid information is at fever pitch, twitter and Facebook are a battleground of self PR, an artillery of likes and favorites charged down by a brigade of re-tweets and re-posts.
I am there with a few tweet jabs (and blog post uppercuts) and can't complain much as my agent found me through twitter. In a marketing driven highly competitive industry such as ours anyone would be foolish to ignore the potential that the social media platforms offer, I just wonder if there is a flip side, a price to pay for allowing ourselves to become a product instead of a person. Do I have times when I lose sleep because I am struggling? Do I worry about what is around the corner? Of course, I don't believe anyone that works the way we do wouldn't. Would I ever voice it over social media? No way, what if a potential client thought that you were struggling? your stock would drop, shares in Liam Arthur would tumble and my brand would be hung drawn and quartered, spread to the far corners of the internet.
Anyway this is all conjecture as I am so busy turning down world-wide campaigns and polishing my awards that I barely have time to spare it much thought.

| LA |