I read two op-eds in the News Photographer magazine two weeks ago that discussed melding of mass media. One by Donald Winslow, the editor, and the second by Tony Overman, president of the NPPA. They both got me thinking about traditional still photography.
There is a lot of talk about melding of the media (radio, video, still, journalism, etc). Traditional still photographers have to carry video cameras, and journalists are now recording sound bites during interviews. I do not like this transition.
Let photographers deal with photographs and videographers video. I’m not studying photojournalism to pick up a video camera. Granted, many principles of design and form between still and video are similar, but they are distinctly different approaches to an event. The beauty of still photography is catching that thousandth of a second, and giving the ability to mull over the frame at leisure. Video is brilliant because it does not require interpretation. If a train derails, people will better know the damage if they’re shown.
Another difference is a photographer needs to get the shot needed before leaving, and be damn sure they have it while videographers shoot the entire scene from A to B and then go back and edit what they need in or out as they see fit. I have no beef with video because I respect it greatly.
There is a reason for different mass communication professions. Melding them together will likely save companies money because one person will be doing the job of many, but quality will suffer. Through separated professions higher quality can be achieved. That’s not to say someone can’t be good at both. But I’d bet money that two people (photographer and journalist) could be found who could tell a story better, and more easily, because they aren’t worried about what kind of photo to get while interviewing or if they got everything the needed for the story while they were photographing.
Specialty maximizes the quality of work.

Reach Paul Solberg at PTSolber3844@winona.edu