Basic VJ copyright

video by Mark M. Hancock / © The Beaumont Enterprise


Doctors and other medical professionals in the Beaumont area gather to relieve stress by playing rock music in a studio above a three-car garage (3CG). The 3CG band performs a jam session of blues.


Music has three copyrights. They are: the composer, the performer and the production company. For music videos, the VJ holds the fourth copyright, but is subject to the first three.

As new VJs ask around, they might hear about the "20-second rule." There is no such rule for individuals or businesses (including newspapers). I won't say what it equates to in the real world, but we'll say a lot of folks get babies by applying a similar fictitious rule.

IF - and only IF - a radio or TV station has all the proper ASCAP record-keeping and payment processes in place, they can use 20 seconds (or more). Since ASCAP licenses are outrageously expensive, don't expect a newspaper to pay the bill. Even if they do, it only applies to the newspaper's Web site - not to a VJ's personal site or blog.

To play music, show a theater performance or even a specific choreography routine, it must be original and a VJ needs the composer's AND performer's permission (preferably on tape).

Then, the VJ becomes the de facto production company (if sound is live) and also retains the shooting copyright.

When a band only performs covers of other people's work*, VJs can ask the band to play "Blues in B." Almost any band can play this. It's the standard jam-session song. It doesn't step on any copyright and actually lets the performers shine.

This isn't foolproof because one of the players could start playing something from another band, but it's the best we can do without taking years of music lessons and law courses.

* If the performers cover Bach, you're OK. We're talking about contemporary pieces from the last 70 years.

Background sound
If music is playing in the background at an event, I've read it isn't a problem to record natural sound while covering news (this might be the infamous 20-second rule). This applies to situations such as festivals and other events where VJs have no control over the sound system.

However, adding music after-the-fact as background is still forbidden unless the VJ has appropriate licences.

Enough for now,

Choose the right video editing software

Mid-summer through November is when most photo departments turn in their wish lists (budgets) for the next year. Often, decisions must be justified because we're talking about thousands of dollars multiplied by the number of shooters per department.

Judging from how rapidly digital video hardware is progressing, I'm certain the software editing side will be drastically different next year. But, we've got to start somewhere.

PJs and future VJs need to know the direction their newspaper is going to make a valid video editing decision. If a paper plans to use video as an online novelty, then Photoshop CS3 Extended could work. If the company wants to eventually move to HDV for online and still image capture from video (where the industry is heading), Final Cut Pro (FCP) is the best option.

If budget is the issue, I suggest purchasing FCP as the best way to handle video and keep current versions of Photoshop for still images. If it's a serious issue, get FC Express and upgrade to FCP Studio next time.

CS3 can handle both still and video, but the array of plug-in programs to get it up to video standard could be staggering. For instance, Apple Shake 4 is a add-on program. It would be required for CS3. The newest version of FCP has a similar program incorporated into the software.

While CS3 has included a color correction program valued at $2,000 in the CS3 Extended, FCP has included the movie industry premium program valued at $25,000 and is already equipped to do everything required for video (sound, color, transitions, text, etc.).


Apple Final Cut Studio 2
This is the industry standard video editing program.

Pros:
Open format timeline (can include different speed videos).
ProRes 422 codec (good reproduction after effect rendering).
SmoothCam stabilization plug in (corrects for hand-held camera shake).
Color correction improvements over previous version. Color, the program, was a $25,000 application before Apple acquired the company.
High-quality sound production tools including surround sound.
Stable program doesn't crash.

Cons:
Doesn't edit photos. Still need to keep some version of Photoshop for photos.
Expensive, but considered a bargain by including Color.
Requires a lot of computer horsepower (MacBookPro is enough).

Adobe Photoshop CS3 Extended [Mac]
This is the industry standard for photo color correction.

Pros:
Less expensive than FCP.
Runs natively on MacBookPro.
Fast import and effect rendering.
Seamlessly transports to PC-based systems with same software.
Incorporates non-destructive adjustment layers (for color correction and effects).
Allows for animation features and graphic design as well as a 3D animation slider from multiple points.
Exports as QuickTime, MP4 and Flash Video.
Bridge editing software is included to do keyword searches for all images on a computer.
More realistic B&W tone control.
Quick Selection tool isolates humans with one touch for color correction or cutouts (see Cons below).

Cons:
If anything, it's overly powerful on the digital manipulation side. In other words, digital manipulation is both easy and flawless without much training and could lead to ethical breaches.
Doesn't offer near the editing functions as FCP.
Will require the following additional programs: Shake, Soundbooth CS3, Adobe Premiere Pro CS3 video editing software.

Adobe Creative Suite CS3 Production Premium suite includes: After Effects CS3 Professional, Premiere Pro CS3, Encore CS3, Photoshop CS3 Extended, Illustrator CS3, Flash CS3 Professional and Soundbooth CS3. It gives more editing power, but the combination of elements costs far more than FCP Studio and isn't as good.

Apple Final Cut Express HD 3.5 (Mac)
Work for low-budget use.

Pros:
They've made some significant improvements in the latest version and made it useful for most Web-based applications.
It's the least expensive of all the pro options.
It's a good training platform to eventually jump to Final Cut Pro.

Cons:
By all accounts, this program isn't sufficient for professional use. The program lacks too many features to make it acceptable for long term use.


Apple iLife '08

If there isn't any budget. The basic starting point is iLife. It includes iPhoto, iWeb, iMovie, GarageBand and iDVD. It's a great starting point and dirt cheap.

Don't let the price fool you. There's some serious horsepower under the hood. It's not top-of-the-line professional, but it's simply amazing for the price (particularly GarageBand).

If a PJ already has iMovie HD, don't change to '08 until the bugs are fixed. Although it features color correction tools, the current edition's timeline is difficult to understand, it has no FX and some other major issues.

Enough for now,

Ken Burns interviews

Filmmaker Ken Burns talks about his latest documentary "The War" at the Lutcher Theater for the Performing Arts in Orange on Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2007. Burns' lecture is part of the Lamar State College-Orange Distinguished Lecture Series.

Mark M. Hancock / © The Beaumont Enterprise


Please read Ken Burns' biography.



Videos by © Mark M. Hancock / NewsEagles

Burns granted an interview specifically for PhotoJournalism. He discusses his background and respect for the still photograph, and how it evolved into his documentary film style.

Burns:   I originally wanted to be a feature filmmaker, and I ended up going, in 1971, to Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts and all the film and photography teachers, and they taught film and photography together with social documentary still photographers. And, film was mostly an afterthought for most of them.

So, I really had my molecules rearranged and (was) taught by great photojournalists and social documentary still photographers promoting a humanistic tradition. And I brought that into my work as a filmmaker.

I abandoned the Hollywood route, but have been trying to bring kind of a value of entertainment and storytelling to the documentaries that I've made. But, in a way in which the still photograph is the DNA - the basic building block - of what we're doing.

At the heart of the work is a healthy respect for the power of individual images to convey complex information without undue manipulation. That's been the heart of what we've been trusting that a great deal of information can come out of an image.

That's why we move in. We don't hold them at arm's length. We get inside and try to resurrect the moment in which they were taken. So, in "The War," it's filled with sound and complicated sound effects track or music appropriate voice that I think helps will this moment alive.

About the "Ken Burns effect."

The Ken Burns effect is something that if you have a Mac computer, it's a feature that's on there. So, we don't want to talk too much about the Ken Burns effect because it's like the tail wagging the dog and not the other way around. This was something developed in respect for an approach I took for still photographs.

And, Steve Jobs and the folks at Apple had spent some time perfecting it, and when they did put it on the computers and asked my permission to say, "Ken Burns effect."

Now, what they're responding to is that for the last 35 years, I have been unsatisfied with the notion that a still photograph is something you just pin up on the wall and hold at arm's length like a slideshow.

I, using those old roots of a feature filmmaker, wanted to get inside that image. And so I treat it like a feature film director, who has a long shot with a possibility of a medium shot, a close shot, an extreme close-up, a pan, a tilt, a reveal. All the different elements at the disposal of a feature filmmaker, I bring to bear into the photograph.

Now, that to me is more an energy than it is a technique. That is to say, we want to energetically explore the landscape of a still photograph and tell stories within those still photographs. That's what I've done.

Now if that's the "Ken Burns effect" and it's now been, sort of, reduced to a button you can push or a mouse you can click that permits you to download your photographs and zoom and pan through them to make your little wedding stories, that's OK.

But, at the heart of my interest was to try to get inside a photograph and resurrect the time in which it was taken and trust that that may be the closest representation we have to the past.

About linear presentation of still images

The fundamental use of a still photograph is usually in isolation, so the viewer, himself, has the opportunity to determine the length of time you spend looking at it. So, when you're getting into telling stories with pictures, you're getting close to film. And, you're beginning to realize that at the heart of film is a still image.

There aren't any rules because at the heart of this compact between the photographer and his subject is the essence of seeing and each individual circumstance has a different demand of seeing.

You're going to cover a wedding on Thursday different than you'd cover a wedding on Saturday, and you're going to cover a wedding quite differently than you're going to cover a funeral.

It gets a lot subtler than weddings and funerals because life in incredibly complicated.

At the heart of our enterprise is, kind of, an awareness and a self-discipline and an interest in understanding what are the natural and authentic stories and how you can get out of the way of them - in presenting them.

And those that you have to superimpose. That's what a filmmaker does, or a photographer does, is put a frame around a moment and make it happen.

Burns most recent project, "The War," explores WWII from a factual and historical point of view. He explains the film and the pressing motivation to make the film.

Please also read, "...how he made 'The War'" by Fred Davis.

Embed SoundSlides onto blogs

I've mostly been playing around with video and sound lately, but I found a way to post SoundSlides directly onto a blog. See examples (with and without sound).

Due to its low cost and ease of use, SoundSlides seems to be the popular Flash program of choice for most PJs lately. As such, they want to publish these presentations on their blogs. Since most blog-hosting services accept XHMTL now, it can be done. However, there are some tradeoffs.

This post assumes PJs already know how to make slide show presentations and post the code onto a hosting site (company or private). As such, there must be a minimal understanding of HTML code editing. Likewise, there must be a place (other than the blog host) to store the files.

From what I understand, GeoCities (owned by Yahoo) and iWeb both provide free hosting in exchange for some concessions. In other words, read the Terms very carefully before posting copyright images to these free services.

Sure, it's cool to present your work to potential clients and friends. However, it's far more important to protect a PJ's future income. Pay the throughput fees and write off the expense rather than giving away image rights.

How to post slide shows to blogs
The first step is to determine what size player a PJ's blog needs. If the site is a single-image blog, go with the full-resolution version. If it's a multi-day blog like this one, use the small version.

Go to the URL of the page with the desired slide show presentation. Right click (PC) to View Source (or View Source from the command bar on Mac).

In the code, Copy everything from "object" to "/object" (with <>). Paste this code into a post. Type "/embed" (with <>) to the end of the code.

Next, Copy the entire URL code from the presentation location. Paste this code in front of the text soundslider.swf?size=0. Type the forward-slash symbol ( / ) between the URL and the text in both locations (value= and embed src=). This should also work with similar Flash programs.

If using the small version (for multi-day blogs), go to the URL string and remove the text /small.html.

Preview the post for errors. Publish the post. It should appear properly scaled.

Dealing with sound
Always check the sound volume button option to give viewers the option to change the sound level. Also, uncheck the autoplay option on the same page if the slideshow includes sound. An unsuspecting viewer in an office somewhere shouldn't suddenly have a rock concert blaring without warning (not good).

Own the copyright
As pro PJs, we don't want anyone stealing our work. Similarly, we can't be lifting the work of others. Either collect the sound, buy rights, use royalty-free/presentation rights-free sound (royalty-free isn't presentation-free), or build your own music in Garage Band or a similar loop compiler.

Yes, there's a future post on this issue, but I don't have time tonight, and it's extremely complicated. Simply stated: if you're not certain you have every right to post the sound, don't do it. Other people breaking the law on YouTube doesn't give pro PJs the right to break the law too.

Enough for now,

Consider PJ's future

During April and early May each year I typically get a barrage of research paper requests. Most students want answers to the same 20 questions all teachers require. Occasionally, I'll get thought-provoking questions. I thought others might also benefit from the answers.

Tonight's answers went to a Harvard University senior.

How has technology changed the industry most significantly in the past 10 years?

The most obvious change is speed of delivery. Ten years ago, speed equated to horsepower in our cars and ability to avoid police. Then, speed was a matter of minutes.

Now, images are delivered via wireless broadband and FM signals at rates unimaginable 15 years ago. We can literally plop down on a mountaintop and deliver images within seconds to any location on the globe. Speed is now measured in fractions of seconds.

This is caused by two marketplace forces:   cable TV news and the Internet.

Previously, newspapers needed an entirely new product each day. Now, we need a partially new product at least each 15 minutes. Ten seconds would be better, but (thankfully) we're not there yet.

The pressure to immediately deliver news came from television and specifically cable networks such as CNN. Because they were able to deliver headline information throughout the day, the audience changed its demands.

This trend initially impacted broadcast TVPJs. Now, still PJs and VJs must deliver "on the fly" as well.

Newspaper readers still depended on newspapers to thoughtfully and methodically examine news and acquire original, authoritative content. Ironically, television outlets also depended on this process for their news. "Breaking news" has to initially come from somewhere.

Traditionally, newspapers broke the information on the wires and TV news broadcasters read the information in a stuffy studio. In the last 25 years, TV outlets have evolved into fast reaction forces to provide information for the 24-hour news broadcast networks. This also allows them to relocate and capture news as it happens.

Advertisers don't particularly care about how thoughtful or meaningful information is. They must get their message to the most people with the least effort and expense. While print media remains the most powerful advertising avenue. Cable television provides a large (semi-captive) audience and relatively low expenses per viewer.

Simultaneously, Internet throughput speeds have soared to amazing rates. The original ability to move a business document across the country at 9,000 bits per second made businesses more agile and reduced costs.

Soon, throughput will be measured in hundreds of gigabytes per second. This allows broadband delivery of high-quality audio and video at faster-than-real-time speeds.

The Internet allowed advertisers to capture a specific audience for little to no expense. This seriously damaged newspaper classified advertising. As time has been compressed from minutes to fractions of a second, classified advertising was reduced from thousands of dollars to fractions of a penny for advertisers.

Essentially, newspapers were forced to speed their delivery cycle by television while having their financial legs removed by online forces such as E-bay, Amazon and thousands of similar Web sites.

Most newspapers have reacted appropriately although slowly. To compete for advertising income against both television and online sources, newspapers have invested in online technologies. Although display advertising has been reluctant to move online, YouTube and other online audio-visual outlets are currently in the process of changing the marketplace again.

Years of financial warfare has taken its toll on the newspaper industry. Many inefficient and overburdened newspapers have failed and fallen in the last 25 years. However, news acquisition as a profession continues to attract some of the brightest and most inquisitive young minds. Intellectual resources have traditionally been the newspaper industry's strongest asset.

Now, newspapers are positioned to deliver high-definition news and advertising via video over the Internet at speeds and quality surpassing real-time television. Meanwhile they remain the primary authoritative voice for local and regional information and analysis.

Organizations with newspaper assets that have vision and tenacity are prepared and possess the technology to take back some of what has been lost over the last 25 years. However, the product itself no longer resembles its original format.

A modern journalist is individually prepared to deliver meaningful audio and video of breaking news in real-time as well as thoughtful analysis on slower-moving issues. The information determines the method of delivery (written, audio or visual).

Predictable income, traditional access and legal protections are persistent problems for individual journalists. This is good for the newspaper industry. They can provide these three assets to qualified journalists who aren't prepared to "go it alone."

Obviously, media organizations must compete for these highly-qualified, multi-media journalists.

Through the Internet, these Renaissance journalists are developing a personal audience beyond the scope of the larger media outlet. If organizations don't equip and reward these specialists appropriately, they'll lose the resources and an individual journalist's audience. Moreover, these journalists have the potential to become powerful competitors in the same market.

If this trend continues, audience share could be measured as an aggregate of the individual Renaissance journalists and their individual audiences within an organization. Fifteen or 20 such Renaissance journalists could join forces to provide legal protection, combined authority (for access), predictable income and insurance for the unit.

They could take with them their core audiences and have the ability to successfully compete directly against the organizations they feel did not support them appropriately in the past. Meanwhile, the business model for such organizations is far more profitable than traditional print media.

As PF Bentley recently warned publishers and editors, "The videographers are your future income and the only hope you have to save the "paper." I'd take very good care of them."

Can anyone be a photojournalist given these new technologies?

I won't discourage anyone from trying.

A photojournalist is a degreed professional. We tell accurate, meaningful stories with our vision. This isn't something a 4-year-old with a point-and-shoot can accomplish. Just as a butter knife doesn't make a surgeon, the recording device doesn't make a pro PJ.

It takes years of training to understand the legal, ethical and financial requirements of this job. This also requires the trust and loyalty of our readers/viewers. If anything, it's becoming more difficult to acquire such volumes of information while simultaneously delivering solid news content.

A PJ's week is packed with physically and mentally demanding news assignments, research, professional education as well as the day-to-day business requirements (meetings, paperwork, e-mails and phone calls). Many also shoot freelance assignments while seeking additional advanced degrees.

Endurance, dedication and tenacity are required skills.

If this question is meant to imply "any monkey can do it," I disagree.

Have these changes forced photojournalists to become better business people, more savvy self-promoters?

Luckily, I work for a huge, privately-owned corporation. This means real profit - rather than whimsical share prices - determine how many employees keep jobs.

Otherwise, PJs have no choice but to embrace solid business practices. The luxury of corporate security evaporated decades ago. The greed of some individuals within the publicly-traded side of the industry has lead to an industry where individual workers are seen as variables within a money-generating structure. In other words, many PJs are viewed as expendable.

This has forced PJs to diversify to such a level that we acquire our own audiences independently of any corporate structure. Instead of relaxing and recuperating after a demanding day, we seek additional freelance clients and outlets for our work.

Many PJs work on advanced degrees while exploring alternative routes for our work (editorial, art, commercial, stock, etc.). PJs must have multiple survival and exit strategies because we simply can't trust the marketplace dynamics and those who have little regard for the long-term ramifications of their short-term, greed-motivated actions.

PJs are in this business for our readers and our readers only. We do what it takes to get stories to readers while ensuring our own survival. After being treated as replaceable variables by corporations, many PJs now view these same corporations as variables rather than retirement communities.

As mentioned above. Renaissance journalists are emerging. These journalists must step away from their artistic inclinations and understand the marketplace realities or choose another industry.

Where do you see the industry in 10 years?

Basically, I see individual journalists using multiple means to deliver information to an individual audience and to the larger general audience through media interconnectivity.

Advertisers, needing to get their message to potential clients, will learn to patronize highly-qualified individual Renaissance journalists capable of creating loyal audiences.

Groups of Renaissance journalists will join forces to initially ensure survival, cut bureaucratic expenses and eventually provide a secure environment to deliver meaningful information while nurturing younger journalists capable of achieving this level of discipline and endurance.

A large part of this vision relies on interaction between journalists and their individual audiences as well as their direction of specialization. Audiences will interact directly with journalists. This two-way flow of information gets information and access to these journalists.

This trend should also expand into the larger, traditional media outlets, who will employ those not willing or capable of venturing into these independent ventures. However, these journalists will eventually realize their own value and demand adequate compensation.

The actual delivery method within 10 years is unknown. I personally thought biodegradable CDs would replace print newspapers by now. I didn't expect podcasts to exist. So I certainly didn't expect A/V podcasts 10 years ago. It's a better option than I originally considered because the entire circulation department is eliminated from the news equation while increasing journalist's contact time with viewers.

Circulation and printing departments remain at traditional newspapers as part of the overall business structure, but these departments become less dependent on the newsroom and must create new sources of revenue to survive. This is healthy for the industry.

While the current trend is toward "live" and "it'll do," I think a measured, refined approach is the hallmark of quality journalism. Information overload has increased the value of those who are able to sift through the mud and find the true diamonds. Audiences and advertisers will follow journalists with the ability to consistently deliver a quality product.

Enough for now,

The video ship is sailing

For the folks who were waiting on the ship to set sail. It just did.

Google is offering to share profits with the top 20+ video content producers. Additionally, new-media advertising agencies, such as 10ton, are jumping into the fray. Here's 10 suggestions from 10ton to create "great online video."

Hat tip to Mark Hamilton at Notes from a Teacher.

Now, this may sound commercial and crazy, but it actually puts profit into the hands of VJs who can create original content. In other words, there's no need to have a massive support structure of modern media companies to sell ads.

Google and others want to sell ads and share profits. There are ad companies ready to place ads onto the video leads. There are brands that can't or won't advertise on traditional (network) TV that are salivating to get their brands in front of YouTube viewers.

Most folks don't understand the significance of all this.

Back in the early 1990s, my brother-in-law started a little hair and fashion site on the Web. He paid for it out of his pocket. I helped provide images, hooked him up with reporters for text and other content for his e-Zine (as we called it then).

Obviously, he was more than a decade ahead of his time because his e-Zine was slick and well received. It was also full of new innovations such as video lessons on how to style and dye hair.

He filmed the lessons on VHS tape, digitally converted them, and edited them with a beefed up PC. The ultra-compressed files were made into bite-sized packets to allow them to be downloaded over standard modem lines ("high-speed" meant hours back then).

His site was popular because there wasn't anything similar on the Web. The 'Zine had high-quality graphics, professionally-written stories and video lessons. The site became so popular that Oprah's production company contacted him for help with a piece they did about Texas-style hair.

But, popularity was a curse back then. If a site got too many hits, the ISP would charge significant throughput overages. This could cost a fortune.

His ISP understood the value of getting their name in front of his readers, so they gave him a discount in exchange for a link to their services. It wasn't an ad, it was forced labor.

He tried to find advertisers to support his project. But nobody would touch e-Zines. Eventually, he shut down the site and bid farewell to his project because it became so popular that he could no longer afford it.

This is why I'm amazed at how quickly the world has changed. Now, anyone with a modem can upload large files - including images and video - to a server. Everyone gets (basically) unlimited server space for free. To top it off, there are companies that sell ads to willing advertisers while taking only a relatively modest cut.

Although this may sound odd, I'd suggest this is the last year for folks to work their way into the pack with reasonably-priced camcorders.

The point of profit-sharing programs is to allow folks to make a living while providing content. The smart content providers should immediately reinvest this money into higher-quality equipment to outpace the competition. Consequently, the entry point in about three years should be steep enough to prevent most folks from trying.

While this creates a staggering amount of information to absorb and process, it also indicates there's a pony somewhere. It's time for the wise folks to find it before it runs away.

Enough for now,

VideoJournalism (VJ)

Sites are listed alphabetically by blog name or PJ's last name. Let me know if a VideoJournalist (VJ) blog is missing, and I'll add it.

VJs
David Leeson's blog
David Leeson - Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News
The Hot Zone
Kevin Sites - Independent / Yahoo!
News Videographer
Angela Grant - San Antonio, TX - San Antonio Express-News
UB Multimedia
Carlos Virgen - Walla Walla, WA - Walla Walla Union-Bulletin
NewspaperVideo
Chuck Fadely - Miami, FL - Miami Herald
Real to Reel
Mike De Sisti - Appleton, WI - The Post-Crescent
CinemaTech
Scott Kirsner - San Francisco, CA
Democracy Internet TV
Nicholas Reville, exec. dir. - Worcester, MA
digicade
Cade White - Abilene, Texas - Abilene Christian University
DV Guru
(Blog was abandoned, but still contains old info)
The Editblog
Scott Simmons
Flippant News
Nectarios Leonidas - New York City, NY
Fresh DV
Matthew Jeppsen and Kendal Miller
HD for Indies
Mike Curtis
The Katie Chronicles
Katie T. Damien - Asheville, NC
Little Frog in High Def
Shane Ross - Los Angeles, Calif.
Mastering Videography
Marc
Newspaper Video
Newspaper Video Links
PrepShootPost
Eric Escobar - San Francisco, Calif.
ProLost
Stu Maschwitz
Self Reliant Film
Paul Harrill - Virginia
Shooting By Numbers
Peter Ralph - Denver, Colo.
Splice Here
Steve Cohen - Los Angeles
SquiggleBooth
Ajit Anthony Prem - North Carolina
Today I Fell Like...
Lawrence Dortch - Washington DC
VideoJournalism
Cyndy Green - Stockton, CA
Video Journalist
Cade White - Abilene, Texas - Abilene Christian University
visual revolution
Brady Lane - Marshfield, WI

Info
Avid2FCP
camcorderinfo.com
Creative Cow forum
Digital Director
Digital Filmmaker
The Digital Journalist
DV info
DVX User
Ken Stone's Final Cut Pro
LA Final Cut Pro Users Group
MediaStorm
MultimediaShooter
Pro App Tips
Videoguys Blog

Multimedia
The X Degree - Melissa Worden - Sarasota, FL - The Herald-Tribune
digital_mojo - M_Fagans - Watertown Daily Times
I Feel Fine - Dan Blank
mathewingram.com/media
Multimedia Journalism : Joe Weiss - Joe Weiss - NC - Soundslides developer
Strange Attractor - Suw Charman - UK -
UB Multimedia - Carlos Virgen - Walla Walla, WA - Walla Walla Union-Bulletin

Advertising
10ton

Grab this graphic:


 

And you're waiting for what?

Many PJs were waiting to make the conversion to video. Since only super-low-res videos (like on YouTube) have any real-time streaming posibilities, some may have waited to learn the new technologies.

Well, IBM announced a flame thrower for most PJs' butts:

The chipset can move data at 160G bits by representing information as light pulses instead of electrons and could be used for both corporate and consumer applications as soon as 2010, IBM said.

Read more at PC World.

End result:   pro PJs have about three years left to learn and perfect video to a "pro" level.

On the still side, this application means we could deliver entire take, high-res images to our magazine clients in less time than it would take to call FedEx to pick up a CD.

Considering how small these chips are for the punch and the CMOS integration, I'm expecting a massive leap in DVR technology within a year. Consequently, the next generation DVR should be up to current still camera technology levels.

Next, we need a new, compact way to store all this information. I'm certain it's in the works as well.

Enough for now,

Denis Delestrac interview

Please read Denis' bio and see his images.

What advice do you have for PJs who want to become IMAX cinematographers?

I would advise them to be very curious. Have their eyes open and have a sensibility toward what's important in life, how they can contribute through their pictures or films to build awareness about any kind of subject that needs to be known. Just contribute to the future around their community, nationally or even internationally.

To be more practical, learn how to express your inner self on film - I don't trust academism as much as I believe in the power of someone's will and passion: if you want to move to film-making, go ahead, grab a camera, get some film and shoot. Then learn how to use Final Cut or any other editing software and start building your own creative and informative language.

Could someone start with video format?

Yes. Of course.

The great advantage we all have now is that with a couple of thousand dollars, you can become a production company. You can get a small DV cam. You can get a laptop, install Final Cut on it and you are a production company. You can shoot. You can edit. You can work the sound. You don't need much more to get started. If you have creativity and sensibility and if you know a few basics – but again, technique is the least important - it's going to work. You're going to get somewhere, but never forget who you are working for and connect with your audience.

What do you think about current PJ video trend?

I didn't know about this trend. As far as I'm concerned, I believe that photography, film, the Internet or any other media all have the same potential for impacting, informing and building awareness, they are just different ways of communicating with an audience. Moving from still photography to motion can be considered as an evolution. There are emotions that can be expressed differently through an audio-visual medium. It's another language with a different alphabet. But the impact of photography is also very important.

What equipment used on IMAX films?

Large format filmmakers use very big cameras, which weigh about 80 pounds and make moving around on location very slow and difficult. The magazines of film weigh very, very much also. You only have three minutes of film in each can. For its technical and creative requirements, I consider it one of the most complicated filming process.

Because it is going to be projected on a big screen, you have to frame it in a way that's not going to have people want to vomit when they see the film (laughs).

You can put all the regular motion camera lenses that you want. They are regular film lenses. Our experience is shooting in 2D, but the 3D cameras work with two magazines and are bi-focal, which means two lenses are used in parallel to reproduce the human eye's vision.

What makes IMAX different then?

During the shooting, you have to set up - very well - all the shots. There is so much information on the frame. It's a 70mm frame, the largest film used in motion pictures. You've got so much information on each frame that you've got to be really careful with how you point your camera.

For example, if you are in the desert, and you have this beautiful, virgin view and you have your character walk through your frame. [However], you have a step on the sand that you don't want or a discarded cigarette butt. You're not going to see it when you shoot the film, but it's going to be huge on the giant screen where it's projected.

It's four times larger. It's like shooting medium format instead of 35mm.

Exactly, it contains more visual information

And when it's projected, it makes the audience read - literally - the screen. In an IMAX theater, you see the people looking around and moving their eyes around the screen because there's so much to see. That makes the editing much slower than in TV film. This allows the audience to absorb all this information.

It's like in reality. You're not still. Your eyes move. When you're in an IMAX theater, it's thethee same. You look to the right, to the left, upward and downward. You observe your environment.

Since it's a wrap-around screen, do you use a fisheye lens?

It depends on the shot. You use wide angles all the time because most theaters have the dome - it's not a flat screen, it's a round screen. You want to cover all of the dome and have the same curve that is going to be on the projection surface so you can see the film correctly.

If you shoot flat, when you project on the dome screen, it'll be deformed.

Special training?

There is no training. It's all based on empiricalism. There are film schools, but large format filmmaking is not taught there. There is no book. You don't learn to shoot IMAX except by doing IMAX. It's all based on the experience of the people who do it. You are lucky if you hang with the few guys in the world who have experience doing IMAX.

In our case, since "Mystery of the Nile" was our first film in IMAX, we co-produced it with MacGillivray Freeman Films, who are based in California. They are the real big, No. 1 IMAX in the world.

You learn by being around people who know this.

To work on a production, I think most of the people who now work on the films, they have experience in 35mm. They have worked around different shootings. You can contact production companies. You have to be ready to work - at the beginning - for little money and to invest a lot of passion if you want to stay in this world. There are many, many people who want to be there.

How does the market look for IMAX and cinematographers?

There are actually quite a few new IMAX theaters in the world that are going to open. The general trend now is these theaters are programming more 3D films because they slowly get equipped with 3D projectors. So, what I would suggest to the young generations is to get very strong in digital - both in shooting and in projecting.

There is a lot of work for projectors - for the projection in the theaters. You don't shoot, you project the film, but it's interesting also. There are many parts of the chain. You are the last guy in the chain, but you are very important in how the people are going to see the movie. You're also going to work with the focus, with the lenses, with lights - it's the same.

It's like when you work with your camera and then you work with the enlarger - same kind of thing. The enlarger is very important. You work with the lens, you work with the lights, you work with everything. Part of the final result is in your hands.

It's the same when you shoot the film and then you project the film I would say. There is a lot of interest to work in the theatres and – from what some theater directors tell me – it is hard to find and hire a good projection person.

I would get into digital, both shooting and projecting, and I would be very interested in all 3D technologies. This is what it's going to be and very, very, very big. Maybe I'm too radical here, but I think 2D is a species that could be extinct very soon for IMAX. We could go farther in time, but it's going to happen in your home also.

What's your lifestyle like?

When you are in a production company, you spend a lot of time developing projects and searching for funding (laughs). It's a pain in the ass because what we want is to get out to Africa and shoot a film, and travel, and be in the editing room and create. Unfortunately, you have to go through this funding part, which, personally, is not my favorite.

But it's a pretty normal life. Sometimes you go to festivals, but most of the time you have regular office work, make your phone calls, have meetings and try to raise money for the film. When you have gone through all the barriers, all the process of getting the money, creating a script, then you pack your stuff and get out of there and you go shoot. [It's] the most stressful, exciting, amazing thing in the world.

How does funding work?

It's a custom thing. Each project is funded in a different way. There's no rule for that.

You can work in co-production, which means two or more production companies are going to put all their assets together to make a film become a reality. It can be financial resources or what we call "talent," or "in kind." It could be cameras. It could be an editing facility, the stock or a director of photography - it could be anything. Whatever you have, you put it in to make a co-production.

Then, you have all the credits that some banks [and] savings companies are willing to give you to participate in the film.

Especially in the states, you have these foundations. The National Science Foundation just gave $2.2 million for an IMAX film, which is incredible. We don't have that in Europe. You don't get 2 million bucks like that, it's not in the culture. That's really only here in the states, and I believe European corporations and foundations should get more daring and give larger support to the independent filmmakers.

Are IMAX documentaries more like PJ work or like movies when it comes to ethics?

In the first place, it's hard to make a direct link between photojournalism and filming IMAX or anything else. You don't work exactly the same way.

IMAX is a strange genre. It's in-between. You have documentaries that always have a part of fiction. Those cameras are so big. Each shot takes so much time to set up that you can't improvise. You can't run behind your character with an IMAX camera on your shoulder. If something happens suddenly, typically you're not ready to shoot.

It's not like video. When you shoot video, you just press record, and you get your images. When you shoot IMAX, you have to spend two hours to set up the shot (laughs) and your crocodile attack has been finished a long time when you are ready to shoot (laughs). You can't improvise.

This means it always has to be - even if it's not storyboarded - it has to be prepared. You have to know what you're going to do.

Then how do you do a crocodile attack?

You don't do it.

On "The Mystery of the Nile" we also had video cameras. The members of the expedition had video cameras with them. Whenever something happened - or, once in a while, they would take the video camera out and shoot and do interviews between them and shoot whatever was going to happen.

For example, they got attacked several times by crocodiles. They even got shot by what we call "the shifters" in Ethiopia. They are the bandits in Ethiopia. So, what we do in this case is we want to portray the reality in the IMAX film. So we recreate the situation and we shoot it. Which means what you see on the screen is not the real guy that shot at the expedition. But, since it's impossible to see it how it really happened, we shoot it again. It's in between reality and fiction because it really happened and we put it in the film, but what you see is not exactly what happened at the moment it happened because you're unable to shoot it.

How many languages do you speak?

French, English, Spanish, Catalan - I would say four-and-a-half because I speak a little Arabic.

How important has been multi-linguistic been in your career?

Crucial. You're in the states. You're in the country where the language is the most used in the world. But for me, being French, if I didn't speak English, I wouldn't go anywhere. Really. All your work language - most of the time - is English.

You shoot in English because most of the technical crew, they are from here. Even if you are with an Italian, a Spaniard and a German, you're going to speak English because you don't speak all these languages.

It's all a reflection of the economy. Most of the theaters are here in the United States. Eighty percent of the IMAX market is here. If China were the number one film market, we would all speak Mandarin (laughs).

What's your biggest visual pet peeve?

Lack of content. There are images that are totally empty. I want to see both the atmosphere of the situation that is captured and I want also to see the sensibility of the photographer - in the same image.

How do photographers do that?

Have a different eye. Work with their feelings. I don't know how to explain that, but when you get in the situation, there are these few shots that you are going to shoot in the beginning. You know you're not inside. You're not in the action. You're not there. And you shoot and you shoot and then you start entering - getting inside your character, his soul reveals to your lens - the essence of the situation is within your reach. You start to control the environment. You are there. That's the moment when you can capture the essence of the moment or the person.

That's all created by you. It's inside of you. It's another feeling of sensibility of yourself because if you give two people the same camera and you put them in the same situation, they're not going to have the same images.

One is going to maybe make a shot that is going to make you want to cry. The other is going to make a shot that's just going to inform you. That's the difference. But the difference is sensibility. It's not technique. It's not a matter of diplomas or schools or whatever. It's just you. If you are a good photographer, that's how I believe you have to work with your heart and with the extension of it, which is the camera.

Anything else?

In my experience when you want to do something, you put all your passion and you positivism and you do it. If you are really passionate about it, you will make it. I'm sure about that.

The money is not really important. I don't earn a lot of money, but it's really exciting. It's about the life that you're going to get. Having a bigger car or bigger apartment - I don't care. I'm fine. I have food every day. I have a beautiful wife. I'm healthy. That's it.

If I could get a Porsche, (laughs) that would be cool. It would be fun the first week, but afterward, I'd have a Porsche and that's it. Material stuff doesn't make you happier. The key is inside you, not in your garage or bank account.

Some readers are concerned about just getting a burger.

They can get a burger. They can make a living. Getting rich, that's another thing. I'm not there either. That's not my goal. My goal is just to have a fun and an enriching life. That's all. I believe this goal is underway (laughs).

Denis is in Spain now, but has graciously agreed to answer any follow-up questions. Either post questions in the comment section or e-mail them to me (let me know your name, city and blog address for a link). I'll add any questions and answers to this post until Nov. 1, 2006.

Marie asks, "I am curious to know a bit about the technological timeline advances in IMAX history and what Denis forsees as future major innovations in the field. Thanx."

Cameras and Film:
IMAX cameras are specifically designed by the IMAX corporation to shoot 15 perforation, 70 mm film (15/70) - the world's largest film format. Their weight is between 42 and 100 pounds. We use Kodak film that the firm manufactures especially, upon demand. The large format projectors are the most powerful in the world. The key lies in the Rolling Loop technology which advances the film in a wave-like motion at 24 frames per second. During projection, each frame is positioned on fixed registration pins and a vacuum holds the film flat against the rear lens element. When combined with IMAX 15/70 film they project images of immense size, sharpness and clarity.

A bit of History is located on Wikipedia.

Future:
The industry is heading towards MORE DIGITAL (production, triggered by an increasing number of digitally equiped theaters) and MORE 3D.

Enough for now,
 

David Leeson interview – Part B

Hopefully, everyone has had a chance to read David Leeson's biography and Part A of this interview. Below is the final part of his interview. I thought about writing it in standard format, but I think the PhotoJournalism readers would probably prefer the complete answers in context. So, I went with a Q&A format. I hope you enjoy and learn.


What keeps you motivated as a photojournalist?

What keeps me motivated to this day is the fact that I can make a difference. I was just discussing it the other day - through tears I might add - with my wife because I was having one of my tough moments. I'd just been writing about some previous experience years ago in Angola, and it was completely difficult. It was late at night – maybe two in the morning – you know, some of it gets to you. I was keeping it together until I said, ‘You know, I think one thing that keeps me sane is knowing what I did and the sacrifices that I've personally made maybe they make a difference. Maybe somebody's life somewhere is affected.’ I said, ‘Outside of that, I don't know what I'd do.’

I don't know anybody who would want to put themselves through some of those circumstances and not truly believe that somehow it matters. That's probably the greatest motivation today. It's still a profound belief that people care and if I can just show them how to respond or show them a need to respond, then they will respond. That's a pretty good motivator to keep you out there.

What advice do you have for young photojournalists?

I've never said this before to anyone else, but I think I'll repeat what was said to me whenever I was 14 years old. I rode my bike – I made an appointment with an ad agency in Abilene, Texas to go speak with a guy that does the commercials. I didn't know anyone else. I wanted to be a director. I wanted to be a film maker. So I went to him and I said, ‘What does it take to be a great director?’

I remember only one thing about the conversation, and he said, ‘Experience everything you can possibly experience. Keep the good. Throw out the bad.’ It made sense to me. I thought about that a lot throughout my career. About gaining experience. About going ahead and going for the moment and trying something different. Challenging myself and going places that maybe others might not want to go because I just wanted to experience it. I wanted to know what this is like.

There was a point where I used to refer to myself not as a photographer but as an experience collector. That's what I felt like I was doing. Now, I think that's going to the extreme. Again, that's passion without a sense of mission. It's unguided. It's unfocused. It's not about just going out and collecting experiences. That's just going out and having a good time.

I'm saying though that experience does play a role. One of the things that you can do as a young photographer is to gain as much of it as you can, as quickly as you can without going insane.

How would a kid in Kansas do it?

I just spoke with some kids in Kansas not too long ago when I was on the Flying Short Course. I remember the conversation. We talked about this vary thing. ‘You know, I'm in a small college in a small town in Kansas. What do I do? I'm not going anyplace great.’
I said, ‘The best thing you can do is get out and have your camera with you at all times. Always be shooting. That's all. Just find things to photograph. People are incredibly interesting.

Just to give a thought process or an idea to think about is I always wanted to do a story about ‘the common man’ or ‘the common woman.’ Just the ordinary guy. Because we have this stereotype of what's ordinary, what's normal. We say the ordinary guy has maybe an 8-to-5 job, he has a wife and a couple of kids, he doesn't get in any trouble, he goes to church on Sundays, he takes care of his business, he's nice to his neighbors, he supports his family, he's not strung out on drugs or alcohol or anything else, he's just got a nice, regular, normal, stable life. He's not out there protesting. He's not out there doing anything. He doesn't get involved in much because he's too dad-gum busy feeding his family and taking care of his business. He lives a relatively happy life. He's happy to mow his lawn and so on and so forth.

The truth is that person doesn't exist because every person is incredibly and powerfully unique.

So, what do you do if you're in this small town? Well, you get out and meet the so-called ordinary man and find out the incredible diversity that's out there in your own community. There's a 1,000 stories right there in a small town. It's just a matter of getting out and opening your eyes and caring enough about people to do it.

I should mention that a prerequisite for photojournalists is caring. It's about caring for people. If you don't care about people you're not going to do well in this business.

You might make a good portrait photographer or something in a studio at Main and Elm, but you're not going to be a good photojournalist. You might as well just give it up because you really got to care about people's lives. That's one of the things that drives you to know. They want you to get out there and hang out with a local farmer or something. Watch what they do. Be an observer.

I realized many years later that I didn't think of myself as a photographer. I'm a journalist. I'm just trying to tell a story. It didn't really matter to me if it's a camera or a notepad or video camera or audio or I don't care. I just want to get out there and meet people. The best part about my profession and my experience has been meeting people – even the jerks. It gives me something to talk about.

Another good way to advance yourself is simply to study photography. I don't mean study by going and taking a course. Maybe that's a good idea. I mean, go to a store and find a book with photographs in it that you really appreciate and touch you in some way. Take it home with you and don't just look at it once. Look at it over and over again. Stop just looking at it, but actually try to see what's going on with it. Why do you like it? What's happening with the image? How did they shoot it? How do you think they shot it? Why do you think it's affecting you in the way it's affecting you? How come it's touching you?

When you start asking those kinds of questions, you cannot help but grow. Not only as a photographer, but as an individual as well.

You don't actually have to go and do the stuff in order to actually have that. Some people are never going to go and cover a conflict. I think that's perfectly fine. In fact, I kind of regret that people know me more for the foreign work I've done in my career then they do for what I've done in the community.

The fact is the foreign work in my career has been miniscule in comparison to what I've done in the community – my daily work as a daily newspaper photographer. Maybe 99 percent of my whole career and every photograph I've taken has been local.

Most PhotoJournalism readers know you as a nature photographer.

Ho ho, that's wonderful! You just made my evening. Tell them that's just fine. They know the nature photography. That's wonderful because I've been working very hard to grow as a nature photographer and hopefully one day be able to make an actual full-time living doing nothing but that. We'll see.

What does it take to be successful in this profession? (skills & mentality)

Caring about people. We've talked about inventiveness, passion and sense of mission. We talked about making a difference. Although I would add you can make a difference without a camera. Sometimes you can make a difference in someone's life just by smiling at them at the right time. I know that sounds trite and kind of cheesy, but it's true.

Outside of that, it's like any profession. This is the part where you get into it. It's like this isn't just intrinsic to photojournalism. It's intrinsic to life. That would be ambition to get up, get out and do it. Stop talking about it. Go do it.

I always had a lot of drive and ambition, maybe a little too much of it. In fact, that's probably one of those weak and strong situations. Because that drive and ambition can turn around and be one of your worst enemies and cause you to overlook some of those things in life that you ought to be paying attention to in your own personal life and the lives of other people.

I've made a lot of mistakes in that area. To me, it just comes down to get out there and work hard. If you care about people, and you have a sense of mission, or you'd like to develop a sense of mission you'll probably do just fine with it. You'll probably be more successful than you could possibly imagine.

Obviously, you need to learn how to shoot. Those are the toughest questions because you need to know how to focus a camera. You need to know how to put your card in if you're using digital. If not, you need to know how to use film. You need to know how to expose it properly. You probably should learn how to use a strobe. Obviously there's a lot of technical aspects to photography – it is a technical field in some ways – but I never put a lot of emphasis on those skills.

I measured my skills on my intimacy with the equipment itself. When I started doing more video, I remember the thrill of one day being able to reach inside the bag where the video camera was, and I knew exactly what every control was. I knew how far when I turned it what it would be setting on so I could literally operate it completely in the dark. That's a level of intimacy that I think you have to get to with your gear before you can finally do what the whole point of that intimacy is for and that is to forget about it. The idea is to become so technically proficient, so confident in your technical skills that you just don't think about it anymore. That's the way I am today.

There have been times where my overconfidence in my skills and my intimacy with my camera has actually been one of my downfalls. It happened just a few months ago. I went and shot something. It was beautiful. It was a great moment, great situation and I was shooting. I even came home and showed the digital screen to my wife Kim and said, ‘Hey, check this out. Look! I kicked some butt today. Look at this. Oh yes, sweet.’ I was really excited about this image. I liked it. It was good.

Then I put it in the Powerbook, fired it up and looked at it large and realized it was totally out of focus. I got to tell you that I was so confident of my ability to shoot. For shooting that photo I didn't even look through the viewfinder. I didn't see any need to. This is pure confidence. Why would I even need to look through the viewfinder, I know I've got it.

I was autofocus. Pushing the little button, you know, hit a few frames. I wasn't really paying attention. I wasn't actually looking through the finder. If I was looking through the finder, I would have seen how out of focus it was.

It was really out of focus. We're not talking a little bit, I'm talking marshmallow.

If you could change anything along the way, what would it be?
Ed note: this question was meant to address professional decisions (ie. “I should have taken a business class in college, etc...”). David chose to follow it as personal decisions. I considered dropping this question, but we can all learn from his answer.

That's always been a tough one for me. I talk about it quite often with my friends. I sometimes wonder what the balance is between profession and personal life. Ultimately when you ask that question, that's what it's going to come down to. It will come down to what things did you do that harmed others or harmed yourself and hurt your personal life.

I used to say I didn't have any regrets about anything I'd ever done. I don't feel that way anymore. I think I've matured quite a bit since those days. I actually do have a lot of regrets, and I'm actually grateful for those regrets. Now this is the odd thing, I don't know if I would have changed them. Because I know that to change them I would be someone completely different today.

Would I be better? I don't know. Who's to say. At some point, you have to look back and say, ‘I did the best I could with what I had.’

I was growing. I was learning. I never wanted or sought to hurt anyone in my personal life or myself. There were times that I did. I wished I hadn't. How can you change those things? How do I know? How do I know that going back and making a different decision might not leave me in a worse place today? That's how I feel.

I think a better thing to do than to sit around regretting what you've done is to look at what you can do today. So, I stay pretty focused on my opportunities today and my choices I'm making today. I hope I learned from the past and try not to make those mistakes again. But, I'm pretty happy with my life.

I love knowing that at 47 years old I can look back on my life and my career and know I spent it the way I was supposed to. That's a real sense of peace.

What do you see in the future for news photographers?

Nobody likes it when I say this, but the future of photojournalism is video. Everyone freaks. Everyone calm down. Everyone needs to just relax. Take a deep breath. I said video. I didn't say the death of the still image. I didn't say that still photography is no more, it's going to be all video. I'm not saying that.

I'm saying in the future for photojournalist – particularly those working for newspapers – if you don't develop those skills in multi-media – whether it just be audio or audio and video – you're going to have a lot tougher time advancing in your career or getting a job in the first place.

It's already showing up. There are already people doing it. There are already students who probably know how to do it already. They're going to have those skills and those skills are going to be put into play.

Let's face it. The demographics continue to decline for readership. Newspapers across the country are putting more and more emphasis on their digital product, being the Web. And if they own TV stations there's a lot of work being put into those.

I don't want to declare the death of newspapers yet, because I think they still have quite a bit of life left in them. But I don't think we have to discus what's going to happen to newspapers in order to have a meaningful discussion about what is going to happen with the Web. The Web is going to continue to grow. We have an opportunity here to make a difference in another medium.

People ask me, ‘Why should I be interested in video or audio? Why should we do it?’ I say, ‘Because you can.’ Because you can do things and speak in ways with motion and sound that you cannot do with a still image.

By the same token, the power of an image is inarguable. Nothing that I know of – any media – can form an entire icon for chapters of history. That speaks to the power of the still image. Everybody would agree with that.

I have a little lesson I like to pose to high school students because I talk about the power of the still image. They don't get it. I can see they're not. So I say, ‘Sometimes it's just content alone has power. If you don't believe it then how about I show you a photograph of your girlfriend with another guy making out.’ It wouldn't even need to be focused to affect your life in a powerful way. So, content alone – visual content – can make a difference. Of course we go far beyond that hopefully.

So we're not arguing the veracity of still photography. I would hope that conversation was done decades ago. But we are arguing about the veracity of motion and sound. I like to say that rather than video because the moment I say video people think ‘journalist + video camera = TV.’ No it doesn't necessarily equal TV.

That's what I've been working in for the last four years or more. My work has been experimenting with the process of translating still images into motion and sound. That does not mean I'm taking still photographs and putting them in video and calling it a video. No, I'm actually using a video camera and using it just as I would a still camera.

It's a very powerful medium. I'm hoping to learn to exploit it more. I think that we're going to see some of the world's greatest films will come out of what's happening right now as more and more people have the opportunity to take a relatively inexpensive DV camera and non-linear editing like your iMovie and create your own film in a weekend.

I've done seven documentaries and last year started to win television awards: the Edward R. Murrow Award, the National Headliner Award for best television documentary (“War Stories”). I won a regional Emmy Award for television documentary. I was also finalist for “Best Short Film” at the USA Film Festival last year. All different [documentaries].

I'm coming to realize my own style, my own approach and ways to do it. It's not easy, but it's not that difficult. Some people who teach this say you have to start over. You have to re-learn everything. It's a different medium. You have to learn things differently. It's not the same approach.

I take an entirely different approach to it, and I say any decent photojournalist is a good storyteller, and they're probably not too bad technically. You have virtually every skill you need right now in order to go out and use that video camera. There's only a few small things you'll have to learn additionally.

It's just like back when we used to shoot all black and white and then they gave us color. Color was just another layer that I had to deal with in an image. Before, I was just looking at the quality of light. Now I was looking at quality and color of light, and the color of an image and how that played a role in telling a story. Now, I've added two more layers. Now I've added sound and motion.

I look at it as communicating and now I have two more layers to work with in order to tell a story. But it does not replace still photography. It never will. Still photography is here from now on as it should be as it will be. Because why? Because it's a different medium. Let's get past that argument. Let's move on to the fact that you can make a difference to an entire different group of audiences speaking in a different language that has just as much power and veracity to affect people's lives as the still image.

What is your finest moment?

I guess we're talking about professional life because if my wife saw it she would say, ‘You mean it wasn't your wedding day?’ or ‘It wasn't the birth of our baby?’ Of course those are amazing moments.

A moment when I was particularly thrilled. I wanted people to understand the veracity of using video in combination with shooting still photography. I had encountered some resistance from higher-ups at the newspaper for taking a video camera with me to Iraq. But I was convinced I knew exactly how to work with both of them. So I told them, ‘You don't need to worry about the content of the photographs. You don't have to worry about the photography. If I give you my word that it's going to be top level, that's good. Just leave it alone. But, I'm going to do this video. I'm taking it with me.’

It really wasn't up for negotiation. I'm taking it, period. And there was one fine moment that stands out when I found out that on the day that one of my still photographs had been published on the front page of I think they said 43 newspapers nationwide on the very same day, later that evening, on World News Tonight with Peter Jennings one of my videos aired. So I had network news and 43 front pages nationwide. And that was the day the video camera died. At the last possible moment, when I had one last chance.

It illustrates so powerfully how you can do both, and you can do both really well. For those who don't know about TV or video, it's just not that easy to get something on World News Tonight. It has to be pretty good for it to make it. It has to be incredibly unique or something. There's a lot of video shot every day. It doesn't all make it because there's a limited time there. By the same token, it's not that easy to hit that many front pages in a single day. The fact that it happened on the same day was a big moment.

By the way, that's not like my biggest moment in life because I don't know what it would be. It was a great moment, but my life has been filled with a lot of great moments. I've had an incredible life. I could die tomorrow and no reason to shed tears for me because I've lived more than I was supposed to be able to live.

Enough for now,
 

David Leeson interview - Part A

Hopefully, everyone has had a chance to read David Leeson's biography. Below is his interview. I thought about writing it in standard format, but I think the PhotoJournalism readers would probably prefer the complete answers in context. So, I went with a Q&A format. I hope you enjoy and learn.

Marie in North Carolina said her questions were existential in nature. First, she was curious as to what dimension the act of photojournalism and the art of photography has added to the life of each photojournalist.

Boy existentialism is right. It sounds like a very specific question, but actually that one’s very broad. It’d be like asking an attorney how has their career affected their lives.

Photojournalism in general tends to be incestuous in nature. Photographers tend to see there is something extraordinarily neat in the very field of photojournalism or in photography. Perhaps that’s more akin to the art field. Artists have a tendency to feel that way. At some level there are aspects of any career that really apply to all of us.

There are three things that have been important to me in my career. One of them is invention. At the earliest level, invention is just trying to think. It’s whenever a person gets a new lens, and they go nuts with it.

It’s going through all the gimmicks. But it is inventive. It is ways that you’re learning, you’re growing, you’re finding things out.

It’s like a baby. I have a new baby at my house. One of the things he’ll be doing to learn about his world is trying to taste everything eventually and touch everything. All of these things are good for the growth process and invention plays an enormous role there.

Think of it as a beginning cook, who in the beginning just adds new spices to change up a recipe. At the end of the career, he’s actually changing the entire recipe to create his own.

The second thing that’s important is passion. I don’t think anybody in any career is going to go very far without passion for what they’re doing. There must be some love, some drive within you that compels you to go out there and be inventive. Otherwise, why cook if you don’t like to cook? Beyond that, how much more can you go if you not only like to cook, but you love to cook.

Lastly, and I think this is the key, is a sense of mission. Without a sense of mission, none of the others really matter because they’re completely self-serving or they’re wildly directed in the wrong places. You have to have some sense of mission. What is the point behind what I’m doing? Why am I doing what I’m doing? That sense of mission will help drive the other two as well.

As a photojournalist, one of the things that is quite different from many other careers is the fact that we travel. We see this wide range of life from the richest to the poorest, the joy of victory and the agony of defeat, and everything in between. We see them healthy and strong and in all walks of life and all cultures. So, it’s a unique profession in that sense. And, yes, I think that might affect you in ways that might be different that might be different than an attorney, who may be passionate about their career and doing pro-bono work and has a very strong sense of mission.

Tough question because it’s so broad.

Every person is affected uniquely. I think if you’ve got two photojournalists who are advanced in their career and sat them down talking, we would have a lot of things in common. I would have a lot of things in common with a beginning photographer, but maybe less so in some areas.

On the other hand, we’re unique in that my travels and some of the conflict coverage. That’s an area that has affected me deeply - in some ways, very negatively. In other ways, I wouldn’t trade for those.

Thank you Marie.

Marie also wanted David to compare and contrast himself as a young photojournalist to where he is now no only in his career, but in his personal life and how being a photojournalist has affected him.

I was always a photographer. I wanted to be a writer, but I didn’t get a job as a writer. I took the job as a photographer hoping they would hire me as a writer. Of course they never did, and I fell in love about two months later.

Well, I didn’t really get it. To me it was like taking pictures. It was fun. Somebody gets to do it. Somebody’s got to do it, and it sure was a cool job. But then when I first realized the amazing power of an image to affect people’s lives, I realized that I had something magical and powerful in my hands. I didn’t want to let go of it, and I never have.

I was so naïve when I started that I didn’t know anything about photojournalism. I didn’t know what photojournalism was. I thought a photojournalist meant somebody who took photos and wrote a story.

Very soon thereafter, I learned that the combination of the two usually is not a very good idea. Writers out taking photographs never was a very smart idea for newspapers - certainly not without giving them any training.

I was that stupid about what photojournalism was. I was completely uninitiated. Unlike a lot of photographers today. Today, to get a job at a newspaper as a photojournalist, my gosh, what do you have to have these days? A degree, maybe years and years of experience, a strong portfolio, great people skills, maybe even a great grade point average these days. I don’t know.

I just know that I’m not sure that I could have gotten a job as a photojournalist if I had to do what you guys are having to do. I don’t know how they do it. You have to really develop some skills early on. You’re going to need to get that passion early on. I didn’t have it because I didn’t understand it. I didn’t know what it really was. I did have a passion for taking photographs, and I also had a real passion for telling stories. I think if there is one key element here that makes me somewhat similar to some of the young photographers is thinking back from my earliest age – even in junior high school – I always enjoyed being a story teller.

The logical thing for a storyteller is what? A writer. That’s the first thing one thinks of. I certainly never thought of photography as story telling because I didn’t have any training. I was not initiated to photojournalism. So, I kind of discovered it after I already got the job. They just hired me because I knew how to process film, because I liked taking pictures and I had my own darkroom.

I used to take photographs up to them – the Abilene Reporter News – I used to try to get them to run it. They never did use any of the stuff.

I was in college, and I got my job at the newspaper while I was still in college. I was working full time at the Abilene Reporter News while I was a junior in college. I was taking heavy loads. I was even took extra courses in high school in the summer so I could get out of school because I just despised school. I didn’t like it. I love to learn about a lot of things. I love education in general, but I didn’t like the school systems. I never much cared for that. I appreciate them more today than when I was in it.

The university I chose was one of the best universities I could find within reach – Abilene Christian University – I’m very proud to be an [alumni] there, but I was really ready to get through that too because I wanted to get out and start my career. I wanted to get a jump on people to be honest.

That’s another thing that I had too that really probably helped me a lot in photojournalism. I was highly competitive. But, I’ve always been a very sensitive person. I’m still sensitive to a flaw to this day. It’s been a tough burden to live with sometimes. Yet, I’ve always considered it one of my greatest strengths. There’s a verse in the Bible that says when your weak, that’s when you’re strong. There’s a lot of truth to that. A lot of our very worst aspects, are also our best attributes at the same time.

The passion sometimes knows no bounds and that’s a very weak character flaw sometimes. And yet at times it’s also the absolute best. And so the trick is learning how do we channel those things. I think that’s the part that changes as we mature as photographers, as people, as our character grows, as we grow as individuals, as we get more experiences. We learn how to function with our own flaws and allow them to be strengths more than they are flaws.

Michael in Portland also asked two questions. First, what’s in your bag when you go to shoot in a war zone. What kind of extra equipment do you bring, what’s your lens preference (prime or zoom, mm).

That’s a good question. It’s kind of a fun question. First, I’m not at all a technical person. For years I had a nickname at The Dallas Morning News. They called me the “Prints of Darkness” because my prints were so dark. I usually shoot things underexposed. Well, actually these days with digital, I shoot everything at least a stop underexposed, maybe more. Sometimes as much as two stops and on a rare occasion 2.5 to three stops. I do that to lower the contrast, purposely, so I can hold the highlights. I cannot stand blown-out highlights. That’s about the extent of my technical talk, ‘cause I really don’t know what I’m doing. I don’t know the ultimate effect of it except to say that I think I know how to get to what I want. I figured out my own way of doing it, and I haven’t got a clue as to whether it’s right or wrong and don’t really care.

My equipment, you almost have to answer that question based on back then and today. In the past, it was pretty simple. In any conflict situation, you need to be very light and mobile. So, I would usually have two bodies. I always did a motor. On a rare occasion, I would take one motor and leave the other one as just a body – without a motor – just to save weight. I always found that having another motor with a camera body didn’t really affect performance. It wasn’t that much of a burden to carry that additional weight for me. It was worth it because I like to have it handy.

I don’t like having to use two different types of bodies. I want the weight, the feel, the heft, the way you grip it and all the controls to fit into my hand exactly the same as the other camera with the only exception being the lens you have on it. I never did like the thought that I could lose a few seconds or even a second switching to a camera and have to actually hold it a little bit differently because it didn’t have a motor on it or a different design of the body. So whenever possible, I always have the same thing.

I’d have two bodies with motors and generally a 20mm lens and a 200mm lens, and that was it. I always use prime lenses. In fact, to this day, I still don’t own a zoom. That doesn’t mean I don’t want one, I’ve been thinking about buying one. I’m not anti-zoom.
I think you have to look back on the fact that I’ve been in the business quite a while. It’s coming up on 28 years.

When I first started out, zoom lenses were not the quality that they are today. You couldn’t get the kinds of zooms that you can buy now. So, I’ve stuck with my prime lenses and always used prime.

Believe it or not, the bulk of my career was using the old Nikons – Nikon F2s, F3s, then I went to F4s for a while. The F4 was such an atrocious camera that I think that was the end of my Nikon era.

I actually went backwards. After I reached the F4, which I had with me during the Gulf War – the first Gulf War, it was a fine camera, but it just wasn’t the same. I just thought they had ruined it. So, I went back to my F3s, because I like the F3P a lot. I thought it was a great camera, but then I decided I was going to go back to the F2.

I went through a really serious slump many years ago. I wanted to return to some basics. I wanted to get back to where I was before so I could start all over and rebuild from there, and see what I had done wrong that had lead me to a slump.

Again, invention. Doing something different to the recipe to affect the outcome. In the end, I was using F2s that were 27-year-old bodies.

Speed?

Back in the Nikon Days, it would have been a 180mm f/2.8 and a 20mm f/2.8. The 20mm was a staple of my photography for well over two decades. I still use a 20mm even on my digital camera.

I just know that I’m not as wide anymore. I don’t care.

Iraq seemed wider.

The work I did in Iraq was not [prime lenses]. I did use zooms there. I borrowed them from my wife, who is a photographer also. I borrowed her 17~35mm f/2.8 and her 80~200 f/2.8. I borrowed those for the trip because I wanted to cut down on weight. I also took a converter. Throughout my travels, I usually took a 1.4 converter with me. ‘Cause you never know if you need to extend that 180mm or 200mm to get more out of it.

Back in the old days – 10 years ago – then I would just carry a lot of film with me. On some stories, we were having to file daily stuff. That was a real job because you had to carry an entire darkroom with you, and set it up in bathrooms. You put your trays in the bathtub, set the enlarger on the toilet seat, process your film on reels, tape off the bathroom door. It was a big job and then you’d use the old drum transmitters – AP drum transmitters – it would take upwards of 32 minutes to send a single color image. It took eight minutes per separation and there are four separations.

Strangely enough, in the digital age during the Iraq conflict, actually carrying the gear just to support the job itself was just outrageous. Now it was not only the equipment – the lenses and the bodies – now it’s the disks, which are lighter than carrying 200 rolls of film. Then you have to have the chargers for all those things and the Powerbook for doing your scans. I guess in one point it’s actually lighter than it was in the old days. At least it wasn’t a full darkroom. But, it’s still burdensome. Of course, then you have a big satellite dish too. Although some photographers are just using those [satellite] phones.

Mine is about the size of another thick laptop - a really heavy laptop. Remember those old Powerbooks years ago that were real thick as bricks. It’s about that size. And then, part of it folds out to be an antenna.

The big issue is getting them charged up every day.

I took inverters with me also. I blew them both out. So, I didn’t have any more inverters. I also took a generator. It worked for about four days. It got choked up and died. I left it there. It was a brand new $800 generator.

I gave it to a captain in the Army. I saw him months later, and he said he got it back home and got it fixed. It needed a new filter or something. He was kind enough to offer it back to me, but I said, ‘No, you carried it all the way across Iraq. You can keep it.’ I think that’s only fair. If he didn’t take it, I was going to leave it anyway.

The part that I think people maybe even more interested in is I carry earplugs with me. In the Iraq War, I carried a video camera. I also carried a small medical kit everywhere I went. In a few situations I had to carry my own tent. In some places – depends on where you’re going – a water purification system. There’s a lot of odds and ends. Those change depending on where you’re going.

At one point I was carrying a very small survival gear, which includes like a fish hook and stuff like that. I also have made a point throughout my career to always carry a couple of my own hypodermic needles. That’s because in third-world countries they re-use needles. I always planned - if I needed one and I was conscious - I was going to hand them my needle. ‘Use mine because it’s sterilized and I know it’s good.’

Michael also wanted to know about access and ethics in conflict areas.

Access varies widely. There’s really no answer for it. You don’t really know. Some places are completely wide open. For instance, covering Central America, it was like if you had the nerve to go someplace, then no one was going to stop you. The army wouldn’t. They’d say, ‘Hey, it’s your neck. Have at it if you’re stupid enough to do it. We’ll let you, but we’re not coming for you.’

They’d just leave you alone.

Contrast that to the first Gulf War, where I spent most of the war fighting Marines trying to stop me from taking photographs. Some of my best images were shot illegally. It could have got me thrown out or wor