Thursday, March 31, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Homeword Details - Profile Assignment + Required Listening
Homework assignment:
* Produce a profile piece about a person -- must pitch story topic first to jryoung@gmail.com and get approval by me if you haven't already.
* Must run at least 2:00, no more than 3:30.
* Must have at least 2 ambient/natural sounds.
* Must have two sources other than you (the profile subject + one person to comment on them)
* Sources must be identified with first and last name.
* Must have hook and story arc.
* Post finished piece (edited in Audacity or software of your choice) to the AudioBoo and then post the embed code to the blog by start of next class meeting (April 1).
Required Listening:
* Ira Glass on Storytelling, Part 3 and Part 4
* Produce a profile piece about a person -- must pitch story topic first to jryoung@gmail.com and get approval by me if you haven't already.
* Must run at least 2:00, no more than 3:30.
* Must have at least 2 ambient/natural sounds.
* Must have two sources other than you (the profile subject + one person to comment on them)
* Sources must be identified with first and last name.
* Must have hook and story arc.
* Post finished piece (edited in Audacity or software of your choice) to the AudioBoo and then post the embed code to the blog by start of next class meeting (April 1).
Required Listening:
* Ira Glass on Storytelling, Part 3 and Part 4
Slides and Links from Audio Class 3
Citizen Editor services mentioned:
* Paper.li
* Storify.com
Links for pieces played in class:
* Ira Glass on Storytelling -- Part 1 and Part 2
* My Way or the FBI Way
* The Hunter
* Say Something - Chronicle of Higher Education audio profile series
* Airman Honored For Bravery During Fierce Battle - NPR
* Iraqis Call for Better Jobs, Benefits - NPR
Slides:
Audio Week 3 Spring 2011 Morning
* Paper.li
* Storify.com
Links for pieces played in class:
* Ira Glass on Storytelling -- Part 1 and Part 2
* My Way or the FBI Way
* The Hunter
* Say Something - Chronicle of Higher Education audio profile series
* Airman Honored For Bravery During Fierce Battle - NPR
* Iraqis Call for Better Jobs, Benefits - NPR
Slides:
Audio Week 3 Spring 2011 Morning
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Homework Details for Next Week - Man-on-the-Street Piece
Assignment: Produce a man-on-the-street piece about a news topic of your choosing.
* Include interviews with at least 3 people (you may need to talk to 4 people to get 3 that are interesting).
* First and last names of interview subjects must be included in the piece.
* Capture at least 2 pieces of natural or ambient sound to add to the piece.
* Edit together the piece, with an introduction and concluding narration, using Audacity or editing software of your choice.
* Post to blog (via AudioBoo and then embed code on the blog) by start of next class.
* Include interviews with at least 3 people (you may need to talk to 4 people to get 3 that are interesting).
* First and last names of interview subjects must be included in the piece.
* Capture at least 2 pieces of natural or ambient sound to add to the piece.
* Edit together the piece, with an introduction and concluding narration, using Audacity or editing software of your choice.
* Post to blog (via AudioBoo and then embed code on the blog) by start of next class.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Homework for next class -- Expert Interview + assigned listening
Produce Audio #1: Expert Interview
Conduct interview with an "expert" (unedited)
Think of it as a podcast interview for a newspaper Web site or an audio extra to go along with a newspaper story online (feel free to use a subject from an article you're working on now for another class, etc).
Start your interview with some sort of short intro, similar to what we did in class today.
And have some sort of ending, like: "Thanks for talking with us.” and the person saying “great to be here” (or some such).
What am I looking for?
+ no less than 2 minutes no more than 5 min.
+ did you find a quiet place to record?
+ did you avoid handling noise?
+ did you hold the mic the proper distance?
+ clear intro and some sort of sign-off?
+ did you ask good questions? (were you prepared?)
When is it due?
+ must submitted to the blog by start of the next class (Friday at noon)
Required Listening:
On the Media: Pulling Back the Curtain
Conduct interview with an "expert" (unedited)
Think of it as a podcast interview for a newspaper Web site or an audio extra to go along with a newspaper story online (feel free to use a subject from an article you're working on now for another class, etc).
Start your interview with some sort of short intro, similar to what we did in class today.
And have some sort of ending, like: "Thanks for talking with us.” and the person saying “great to be here” (or some such).
What am I looking for?
+ no less than 2 minutes no more than 5 min.
+ did you find a quiet place to record?
+ did you avoid handling noise?
+ did you hold the mic the proper distance?
+ clear intro and some sort of sign-off?
+ did you ask good questions? (were you prepared?)
When is it due?
+ must submitted to the blog by start of the next class (Friday at noon)
Required Listening:
On the Media: Pulling Back the Curtain
WHNPA reflection: Aimee Cedres
I learned a few things about the current state of photo journalism at the Judges' Panel for the White House News Photographers Association. The judges, veteran photojournalists with many great achievements already under their belt, each had a nugget or two of wisdom to share with their peers and students in the audience. They were of many faces, missions, methods and mediums that render them unique, but what separates this particular range of journalists is their search for humanity in every story. It is "transparency" that they strive for in their story telling, as legendary White House photographer Chick Harrity said, and not objectivity.
Objectivity is not human; transparency is a veil with two sides, a link between the public and the purveyors of information. For some journalists, transparency is democracy's best defense, for others it’s sharing a slice of life to connect one story to the greater public consciousness, or a chance to seize truth, uncover injustice, and shed light on a shunned issue. Transparency leaves room to discern when ethics comes into play. The journalist still has an obligation to inform of blatant injustice. Chad Stephens, who shared his piece on activists fighting against mountain top removal in the Appalachians, said “There are some things that are so wrong that you just need to say that they’re wrong.”
This year was the 90th anniversary of the WHNPA and changes in the profession was one of the major topics for discussion. Harrity often cited the issue of access to public figures, which is increasingly diminishing with concerns for security that cloister politicians and other leaders. Many of the candid moments of humanity he was able to capture occurred when politicians meandered freely in public and stood with the people. Several mentioned time and funding constraints on their projects that are increasingly limiting opportunities for elaborate projects examining a question over a stretch of time.
The judges stressed the need for collaboration and solidarity amongst journalists. In a multimedia driven news environment the best way to accomplish top-notch pieces is to collaborate with others who encompass the strengths requisite to all modes of production. They support each other, contribute to each other’s projects and further each other’s vision. The humanity in the stories they tell are also apparent in the way they work together to tell them; the range of aptitudes and perspectives in a group of journalists ultimately contributes to a vision with more layers and facets.
The definition and use of the term multimedia was largely up for debate amongst the judges. Eric Maierson rejected it as a vague in-vogue catch-all term. Stephens defined multimedia as journalists speaking in different ways and different mediums. In any case, all the judges showed that they take on multiple roles as storytellers and showcase their work in multiple mediums. The visual, voices, sounds, music; even the trusty written word still manages to work its way into their work. The judges panel made it clear that journalists, if they aim to be great, must find their niche and have an intensely personal relationship to their work and then it takes its own significance. It doesn’t come easy. They say it takes courage and multiple failures and a daily struggle for creation, but they stressed that it is very possible. The judges on the panel fulfilled in their work the greatest functions journalists can strive for: to enlighten, connect and empathize with the human condition.
with Judge Eric Maierson
WHNPA Reflection by Dana Sukontarak
(Photo taken by Trevor Ruben)
On Saturday, February 26, at about noon, I arrived at the National Geographic building in Washington, D.C for the WHNPA judging. I was very excited albeit a bit rushed because I had to go to work at 2. Upon entering the building, I was immediately captivated by the hanging arrangement of framed photos in the lobby. There was really some excellent photography on display, so I could only imagine the caliber of imagery I would see in the competition. Also, having looked at previous winners in different categories of the competition, I knew I was in store for a treat.
The (unfortunately) only judging I got to sit in on, given my time constraint, was sports action photography. This category was very compelling to say the least. Many of the photos were of sports games, capturing the players in mid-motion or in a position you wouldn’t ordinarily catch in regular, full-speed motion. There were many pictures which were quickly whittled down to 14 by judges William Snyder, Chick Harrity, and Alexandra Avakian. I noticed that none of the judges elected to keep most of the pictures that seemed “ordinary,” such as a picture of men playing soccer or two players on a baseball field. Even these “ordinary” pictures were beautiful, but I noticed the judges were looking for something a little less commonplace in the sports world. Among the different sports, the judges also seemed to only keep the most compelling of each sport, i.e. they didn’t keep two tennis or two football pictures. I also noticed that many of the pictures the judges really liked had lots of sharp angles and contours.
The first photo that flashed by that garnered immediate judge and audience reaction was of a dog jumping a hurdle. The dog was mid-air, eyes wide, mouth open and tongue hanging out. Everyone giggled at this picture and it ended up being in the top 7. This was one of my favorites, partly because in a category like sports action, you wouldn’t expect to see a dog, especially one with so much personality vividly apparent in its facial expression. Facial expressions, I noticed, also counted for a lot. There was a close-up shot of a woman tennis player which also ended up in the top 7, and it clearly displayed the strength and vigor that goes into each swing during a tennis game. Her face was intense, crunched up, and sweaty. It was “perfect timing,” according to Avakian. Another judge (one of the men) said it was great because it even captured her earring in mid-swing. The picture was very sharp, concise, and detailed. It really caught a split second moment wonderfully.
After the judges made their cuts, which happened very quickly, the 7 final photos were placed in order according to how much the judges liked them. The second place photo was of children in South Africa playing soccer along the backdrop of a beautiful sunset. The judges really liked the composition and overall aesthetic appeal of this photo. Photos in third to seventh place included a football touchdown picture, the tennis close-up shot, a baseball picture, the dog running, and a photo of an athlete competing in the luge.
The picture that the judges unanimously decided to keep as number one was Kenneth Kelly “braining” a barracuda. The photo was underwater, and Kelly was shoving a spear into the barracuda’s head, and the water was red with its blood. “You don’t see that very often,” said one judge, which I think was its ultimate deciding factor. It is very unusual to see something like that take place in a photo, and to be so ugly and beautiful at the same time was pretty cool.
Overall, I had a great experience at the WHNPA competition, and wish I was able to attend more of the judging. Many very talented people contributed towards making the competition a fierce and visually amazing one. I was surprised to see how tenured eyes can quickly pull apart a photo and deem if it is worthy of staying in the competition. It was interesting to see what aspects of a photo the judges really found value in, and piqued my personal curiosity and interest in photography.
Welcome Morning Audio Section
Audio is sometimes called the most visual medium. We'll discuss why, and learn how to capture and edit professional-quality recordings, along with the fundamentals of audio storytelling.
WHNPA - Sports Action Still Photography
I attended the judging of sports action photos on Saturday, Feb. 26 and I have to say, the judges did not really bother to explain themselves at all. First they narrowed down the fifty or so entrants by simply stating “in” or nothing, and when they got down into single digits, interesting terms like “toning” and “balance” were thrown around without much explanation. I was able to draw limited meaning from their offhanded grunting of photographic terms, but in the lack of further explanation, my ability to draw educational value from this entire exercise was severely diminished.
Nevertheless, I did find the actual photos interesting and in following the systematic elimination process, I was able to at least compare my favorites to what the judges seemed to like. Two of them passed all the way through to the final judgment without trouble. One was a picture of two agility dogs and the other featured a man ”braining” a fish. The topic of both photos being animal, I could only surmise that my own interest in the photos has something to do with the fact that I do not enjoy watching sports very much. I would much prefer to watch dogs or fish. Perhaps the judges felt the same, as the fish picture eventually ended up in first place. I don’t know.
The fish picture, a barracuda being stabbed in the face, is actually haunting. Either through expert manipulation or luck, the photographer managed to mask the rest of the fishes body with its own blood, showing only a head and a flowing cloud of redness. Ironically, you can only see the fisher’s body, as his head is cut off by the surface of the water. Again, I’m not really sure why this photo ended up winning in the judges eyes, but to me it deserved to win because of the odd juxtaposition of man’s body to fishes head.
All of the final eight photos were aesthetically pleasing to my untrained eye, but aside from the animal photos, I was particularly drawn to a close-up of a tennis player whacking the ball. There was a lot of cool stuff going on. First, the ball was squished against the racket, forming a dome shape. Second, her earring swooped out to the opposite side of the photographer, leaving her heavily expressive face sitting right in the middle. This is one of those times I heard the word balance being used by the judges. Not only was this photo a great example of excellent timing, it also displayed a superior sense of purpose from the photographer. Most of the other photos were straight shots encompassing all important aspects of the scene, but this one focused on a facial expression while remaining balanced. I also happen to play tennis, so there’s that.
So far we have animal photos and a close-up. My guess as to why the other photos were contenders is the stories they told. One photo showed a little league baseball player up at bat but missing the ball while blowing a bubble gum bubble. For no other reason, it was the gum that made this photo entertaining. There must be thousands of pictures showing batter whiffing the ball (I have one of myself) but this may be the only one with a kid blowing a bubble. Questions immediately pop into my head. What was this kid thinking? Did he even care that he missed, or was the gum the most important thing to him? Answers to these questions are unknown, but the fact that I am asking them is enough. Aside from the gum, one other cool aspect is the cloud of dirt puffing off the catcher’s mitt as he catches the pitch. Again, just cool looking.
From what I can gather, it seems that to be a contender in a competition like this, a photo has to be more than aesthetically pleasing. This extra something is not a photographic term or a specific guideline. The extra something can be described only as what it appears to be in the photo. In one instance it may be some bubble gum, in another it can be described as a delicate balance of three very different objects (referring to the tennis shot now). From the wild expression of a competing dog to the gushing blood of a half-dead fish, as long as the photographer finds something that cannot be placed under any categorical term, the photo is worth a damn. Take a picture of yet another pitcher rearing his arm back, and the judges will probably give it the silent
Me just outside the auditorium (and to the left).
Photo taken by Dana Sukontarak.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
WHNPA - Maria Z
I attended two judging categories: “Multimedia Package In-Depth” and “Multimedia Innovation.” The judges for these categories were Sue Morrow, Chad Stevens and Eric Maierson.
In assessing the eight submissions for the “In-Depth” category, the judges talked a lot about the presentation of the package, not just the individual components. From their discussion I learned the importance of balance in a video. For example, the judges talked about how pairing a heavy story with dramatic music was a bad choice because it felt too overdone. “It felt like a war video game,” one of the judges said about an entry.
Because the judges were looking at presentation as a whole, they looked at the different aspects of the presentation and clicked around on the available tabs and features. One of the initial things they reacted to was the project’s accessibility.
For example, some entries in the “In-Depth” category were tossed out because the way in which different types of media were combined fragmented the project. Regarding a submission that ran a story in one column and an audio clip in the other, a judge said, “You can’t read and listen. It’s too hard.” Accessibility was also an issue if the initial interface was confusing. The judges wanted to know where to go first in viewing the project. Or, if not first, at least not be overwhelmed by where to start. Projects lost points with the judges if some parts seemed underdeveloped. For example, one package included a map that the judges felt was underutilized. They wanted more features than the ability to zoom in and out.
When it came to judging video, what the judges definitely didn’t want was cross dissolves. I’m not sure how I feel about that. It seemed more like a collective pet peeve among the judges than something the journalists had done wrong. Their logic was that people see in “blinks” which is a hard cut, not a dissolve. Though I haven’t taken the video class, I’m not convinced that cross dissolves are really as bad as they were made to seem by the judges.
I’m not surprised with the three winners of this category. I think the projects chosen were clearly the strongest because they incorporated several types of media in a way that was compelling and easy to navigate. The Washington Post’s “Hidden Life of Guns” project was particularly interesting to hear the judges discuss because they described it as “file stuff made interesting.” I had seen this project before, when it originally went live, but I had not realized that about it. Essentially, this was an affecting and compelling multimedia package created from a trend the reporters uncovered by digging through databases and documents.
I was pretty pleased to be able to have the experience of hearing professionals assess other professional work. From watching the “In-Depth” category I got an understanding of how to look at online work as a whole, and to understand that even if each individual part of a package is great, the project’s navigability and interface are crucial to its success.
Judging the “Innovation” category was a lot more complicated than judging the “In-Depth” category. First was the issue of definition: What, exactly, is “innovation” in multimedia? Is it using media in a new way? Is it making the viewer think in a new way? The judges were constantly coming back to the category definition, which read, “This work recognizes vision and creative thinking as well as technological innovation in telling a story.”
One piece, to which the judges gave “Special Recognition,” caused a particularly hot debate. For this piece, called “Words,” the presence of innovation was agreed upon by all of the judges; all of them thought it made the viewer think in a new way. However, they debated the ethics of the piece because some of the scenes appeared staged. In the end, after consulting the rules and mission of the contest, they decided it did not fit the parameters of the contest and could not place. This was particularly disappointing because, of all of the pieces in the category, this seemed like the only one that was truly original. However, I understand the consideration the judges had to make because the piece did fall closer to film than journalism. While this wasn’t good for the contest, the judges said its film-like qualities are what documentary makers should strive to achieve.
The winning piece, “Planet Money’s Toxic Asset,” won because it was a unique way of presenting a complex subject. This piece took the financial crisis and personified it through “Toxie,” a toxic asset turned animated character. The piece won because it took a different approach to telling a widely known – but often misunderstood – story. However, the idea of personifying something isn’t “innovative” and this was something the judges grappled with.
This category seemed particularly hard to judge because while it was easy to say if a piece was creative and had vision, a unique technical execution was much harder to come by. All of the “Innovation” winners were interesting and good pieces, but none of them were groundbreaking. From this category I learned just how hard it is to be “innovative,” but also that innovation is not always necessary.
“If the story is powerful as it is, being innovative will take away from the story and focus on technique,” one of the judges said.
Me and judge Chad Stevens at WHNPA.
Chad Stevens and Eric Maierson wait for Sue Morrow to return from break before beginning the "Innovation" category judging.
In assessing the eight submissions for the “In-Depth” category, the judges talked a lot about the presentation of the package, not just the individual components. From their discussion I learned the importance of balance in a video. For example, the judges talked about how pairing a heavy story with dramatic music was a bad choice because it felt too overdone. “It felt like a war video game,” one of the judges said about an entry.
Because the judges were looking at presentation as a whole, they looked at the different aspects of the presentation and clicked around on the available tabs and features. One of the initial things they reacted to was the project’s accessibility.
For example, some entries in the “In-Depth” category were tossed out because the way in which different types of media were combined fragmented the project. Regarding a submission that ran a story in one column and an audio clip in the other, a judge said, “You can’t read and listen. It’s too hard.” Accessibility was also an issue if the initial interface was confusing. The judges wanted to know where to go first in viewing the project. Or, if not first, at least not be overwhelmed by where to start. Projects lost points with the judges if some parts seemed underdeveloped. For example, one package included a map that the judges felt was underutilized. They wanted more features than the ability to zoom in and out.
When it came to judging video, what the judges definitely didn’t want was cross dissolves. I’m not sure how I feel about that. It seemed more like a collective pet peeve among the judges than something the journalists had done wrong. Their logic was that people see in “blinks” which is a hard cut, not a dissolve. Though I haven’t taken the video class, I’m not convinced that cross dissolves are really as bad as they were made to seem by the judges.
I’m not surprised with the three winners of this category. I think the projects chosen were clearly the strongest because they incorporated several types of media in a way that was compelling and easy to navigate. The Washington Post’s “Hidden Life of Guns” project was particularly interesting to hear the judges discuss because they described it as “file stuff made interesting.” I had seen this project before, when it originally went live, but I had not realized that about it. Essentially, this was an affecting and compelling multimedia package created from a trend the reporters uncovered by digging through databases and documents.
I was pretty pleased to be able to have the experience of hearing professionals assess other professional work. From watching the “In-Depth” category I got an understanding of how to look at online work as a whole, and to understand that even if each individual part of a package is great, the project’s navigability and interface are crucial to its success.
Judging the “Innovation” category was a lot more complicated than judging the “In-Depth” category. First was the issue of definition: What, exactly, is “innovation” in multimedia? Is it using media in a new way? Is it making the viewer think in a new way? The judges were constantly coming back to the category definition, which read, “This work recognizes vision and creative thinking as well as technological innovation in telling a story.”
One piece, to which the judges gave “Special Recognition,” caused a particularly hot debate. For this piece, called “Words,” the presence of innovation was agreed upon by all of the judges; all of them thought it made the viewer think in a new way. However, they debated the ethics of the piece because some of the scenes appeared staged. In the end, after consulting the rules and mission of the contest, they decided it did not fit the parameters of the contest and could not place. This was particularly disappointing because, of all of the pieces in the category, this seemed like the only one that was truly original. However, I understand the consideration the judges had to make because the piece did fall closer to film than journalism. While this wasn’t good for the contest, the judges said its film-like qualities are what documentary makers should strive to achieve.
The winning piece, “Planet Money’s Toxic Asset,” won because it was a unique way of presenting a complex subject. This piece took the financial crisis and personified it through “Toxie,” a toxic asset turned animated character. The piece won because it took a different approach to telling a widely known – but often misunderstood – story. However, the idea of personifying something isn’t “innovative” and this was something the judges grappled with.
This category seemed particularly hard to judge because while it was easy to say if a piece was creative and had vision, a unique technical execution was much harder to come by. All of the “Innovation” winners were interesting and good pieces, but none of them were groundbreaking. From this category I learned just how hard it is to be “innovative,” but also that innovation is not always necessary.
“If the story is powerful as it is, being innovative will take away from the story and focus on technique,” one of the judges said.
Me and judge Chad Stevens at WHNPA.
Chad Stevens and Eric Maierson wait for Sue Morrow to return from break before beginning the "Innovation" category judging.
WHNPA Reflection
For the WHNPA assignment, I chose to go to the Friday night panel discussion. To start, I will say I was dreading this assignment a bit. I live about 1.5 hours away from College Park and, obviously, even farther from Washington D.C. But when I got to the panel discussion, I found that it was a lot cooler than I thought it would be.
After the introductions of judges, they announced that two judges from both categories, new media and photography, would present their work and also be available for a question and answer session. The first judge was a new media judge who worked for MediaStorm, Eric Maierson.
Maiseron showed two new media projects he had created, with help. The first was nonfiction and followed the life of a woman, Virginia, who was a single mom and also took care of her dying father. The video used audio, video and photography and was pretty interesting to watch. The second video was fiction, which he did not say until afterword. It used audio and photography and three different women read scripts about their lives. After showing the video, Maierson took questions from the audience. The two that I remember most clearly were how did he find people to interview and why did he do a fiction video? For finding people, Maierson briefly mentioned Ira Glass’s storytelling series (one of which we watched in class) and how difficult it was to find people to interview. I can’t remember the reason for the fiction video, but in all honesty, I did find it strange that he showed a scripted video for a journalism event. That being said, it was neat to see how he used audio and photographs in it.
Photographer Alexandra Avakian spoke after Maierson and she also had a pretty impressive career and projects. She showed several amazing and moving photographs, including some about her battle with breast cancer. She also talked about some of the difficulties of being a woman photographer in foreign countries in conflict. However, she also made a point to say some of the dangerous situations she was in were at the hands of Christian soldiers, so the danger was not necessarily always about different religions. What I especially liked it when she showed pictures of beautiful children in these foreign countries and said she did it to show that there is beauty everywhere. I loved the pictures and her attitude about them. I know I could not do that (I don’t have the talent or courage!!) and I thought she was quite brave to do so.
Next was another new media judge and perhaps, my favorite demonstration. Chad Stevens is heavily involved in a movement in West Virginia against mountaintop removal for mining. I was not even aware that this was taking place and to hear Stevens talking about it got me upset for those people. He also showed two videos, one of which a “trailer” for a documentary that has not been finished yet. The videos were amazing and really drew me in to the cause. But what I found most interesting were his thoughts on journalism. He admitted that he was walking a line between journalism and advocacy and when questioned further, he said there wasn’t objectivity in journalism, only transparency. I found that very interesting and I can’t say that I disagree. I try very hard to not let any bias show in my articles, but that does not necessarily mean that it isn’t there. We are all human and we all have our opinions and I liked how he admitted that. In terms of logistics, I think he used audio and video well.
And the final speaker and judge was Chick Harrity, who talked about the many presidents he had covered throughout the years. He was pretty funny when he talked about the presidents and also had a couple of moving photographs. One photograph was of a baby in a box and he talked about how that photo garnered such a huge response that they went back and did a story on the family and eventually, people raised enough money to bring the baby to America for a surgery to fix a heart defect. And perhaps, most moving of all, that same girl presented Harrity with his lifetime achievement award from the WHNPA in 2007. I also found it really interesting when he talked about past presidents and how often they went out in public and interacted with people.
Overall, I had a really great time at the panel discussion. Viewing the judges’ projects was really interesting and so was listening to them talk about their careers and give advice for ours. It really helped to see professionals use the skills we are learning now.
(Me after the panel discussion -- taken by John Bawroski)
After the introductions of judges, they announced that two judges from both categories, new media and photography, would present their work and also be available for a question and answer session. The first judge was a new media judge who worked for MediaStorm, Eric Maierson.
Maiseron showed two new media projects he had created, with help. The first was nonfiction and followed the life of a woman, Virginia, who was a single mom and also took care of her dying father. The video used audio, video and photography and was pretty interesting to watch. The second video was fiction, which he did not say until afterword. It used audio and photography and three different women read scripts about their lives. After showing the video, Maierson took questions from the audience. The two that I remember most clearly were how did he find people to interview and why did he do a fiction video? For finding people, Maierson briefly mentioned Ira Glass’s storytelling series (one of which we watched in class) and how difficult it was to find people to interview. I can’t remember the reason for the fiction video, but in all honesty, I did find it strange that he showed a scripted video for a journalism event. That being said, it was neat to see how he used audio and photographs in it.
Photographer Alexandra Avakian spoke after Maierson and she also had a pretty impressive career and projects. She showed several amazing and moving photographs, including some about her battle with breast cancer. She also talked about some of the difficulties of being a woman photographer in foreign countries in conflict. However, she also made a point to say some of the dangerous situations she was in were at the hands of Christian soldiers, so the danger was not necessarily always about different religions. What I especially liked it when she showed pictures of beautiful children in these foreign countries and said she did it to show that there is beauty everywhere. I loved the pictures and her attitude about them. I know I could not do that (I don’t have the talent or courage!!) and I thought she was quite brave to do so.
Next was another new media judge and perhaps, my favorite demonstration. Chad Stevens is heavily involved in a movement in West Virginia against mountaintop removal for mining. I was not even aware that this was taking place and to hear Stevens talking about it got me upset for those people. He also showed two videos, one of which a “trailer” for a documentary that has not been finished yet. The videos were amazing and really drew me in to the cause. But what I found most interesting were his thoughts on journalism. He admitted that he was walking a line between journalism and advocacy and when questioned further, he said there wasn’t objectivity in journalism, only transparency. I found that very interesting and I can’t say that I disagree. I try very hard to not let any bias show in my articles, but that does not necessarily mean that it isn’t there. We are all human and we all have our opinions and I liked how he admitted that. In terms of logistics, I think he used audio and video well.
And the final speaker and judge was Chick Harrity, who talked about the many presidents he had covered throughout the years. He was pretty funny when he talked about the presidents and also had a couple of moving photographs. One photograph was of a baby in a box and he talked about how that photo garnered such a huge response that they went back and did a story on the family and eventually, people raised enough money to bring the baby to America for a surgery to fix a heart defect. And perhaps, most moving of all, that same girl presented Harrity with his lifetime achievement award from the WHNPA in 2007. I also found it really interesting when he talked about past presidents and how often they went out in public and interacted with people.
Overall, I had a really great time at the panel discussion. Viewing the judges’ projects was really interesting and so was listening to them talk about their careers and give advice for ours. It really helped to see professionals use the skills we are learning now.
(Me after the panel discussion -- taken by John Bawroski)
WHNPA Contest_Ashley M. Latta
The White House News Photographers Association contest was an awesome experience for us, as students. It is very incredible to see the award-winning photographs and interesting to try to understand what elements make them award-winning.
I want to take a minute to discuss my favorite winners overall. I absolutely love the 1st place series for the Picture Story/Sports category, "Blood in the Water, Tentacles." I often photograph/document the fishing trips I take with friends and family of the coast off North Carolina and South Carolina and this series reminded me of that. There is so much action to photograph and fish, ironically, or pretty photogenic and gorgeous creatures. The underwater photos are gorgeous but my favorite is looking down into the open mouth of the fish. This series is spectacular!
I spent a few minutes looking at the second and third place winners in this category and they are fabulous too. The second place winner, "No Arms. No Legs. Huge Heart" is incredibly moving. My favorite aspect is that most of the photos are taken from the eye level of the subject, which contributes to the story and helps the viewer relate. The third place winner, "Fighting Chance" really pulls on my senses. The beads of sweat. The fact that they are all shot in black and white. It's a very compelling series.
I don't really care for the photos of politicians. I think it's mostly because there are a million photo ops for public figures like the president and others on Capitol Hill. I also think that taking compelling photographs of warfare or disasters is "easy" in some ways (I am very hesitant to use the word "easy" because I don't want to diminish the challenges faced by these photographers!) I recognize the importance of what these photographers do. They tell the stories of war and disaster through the eyes of the people who experience them on the ground, a different view from the one we get on the 6 o'clock news. However, I think those photos are compelling in and of themselves. It's not hard to make a phenomenal story. The story is there. The creativity exists mostly in how you tell it but you don't have to find it.
The rules for the contest are interesting. I actually like how strict the rules are on altering the photographs. While retouching, cropping, and normal color adjustments were acceptable, drastic alterations were not.
"No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph and the image must be a truthful representation of whatever happened in front of the camera during exposure." (WHNPA Contest website).
While I agree that the rule is important and necessary, I find it a little ironic because so many publications we see everyday include images that are changed excessively. I once saw a magazine cover featuring President Obama in a bathing suit (shirtless) and his skin color was lightened significantly. I don't like the impact these changes can have on how an image or story is interpreted.
The judging wrapped up several hours earlier than the suggested time on the WHNPA website. As such, I arrived at the tail end. However, I would like to spend a moment on the final session: Political Photo of the Year. I like the choice they made. I think the image says a lot about where our country stands at this moment in history. This was a pivotal moment on Capitol Hill and it is one that may define us as a nation. I found it ironic that the other photo in the top two was one of Rand Paul, someone who represents the Tea Party movement, which opposes the very objectives being celebrated in the winning photograph (health care reform). I don't know that I would have chosen either, to be honest. But as far as storytelling goes, I think the winning photo is appropriate.
I thoroughly enjoyed looking through the WHNPA Eyes of History 2010 book of last year's winners. I absolutely love photography and had hoped I would have the opportunity to strengthen those skills, along with my writing, while in graduate school at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism. (Thank goodness for Slice, are there really no other photojournalism classes available to me?!).
Despite my love of photography I had an epiphany as I flipped through last year's winners. I actually relived a little history. I remembered the familiar events some of the photos portrayed more vividly than if I had read a description. For the first time, I realized the actual power of photography. It is so much greater than a gorgeous photo. A compelling photo. An interesting photo. Somehow I never really understood how important photographs are in storytelling, on their own. Without words.
I am excited to have the opportunity to sharpen my own photography skills but I admit that I'm anxious to see how our photos will be judged! I hope there is more clarity in the explanation for what deserves an A (first place, if you will) and what doesn't.
Caption: Me outside the National Geographic Building holding the WHNPA Eyes of History 2010 book. Picture taken by classmate, Ashley S. Westerman, Sunday February 27, 2011.
I want to take a minute to discuss my favorite winners overall. I absolutely love the 1st place series for the Picture Story/Sports category, "Blood in the Water, Tentacles." I often photograph/document the fishing trips I take with friends and family of the coast off North Carolina and South Carolina and this series reminded me of that. There is so much action to photograph and fish, ironically, or pretty photogenic and gorgeous creatures. The underwater photos are gorgeous but my favorite is looking down into the open mouth of the fish. This series is spectacular!
I spent a few minutes looking at the second and third place winners in this category and they are fabulous too. The second place winner, "No Arms. No Legs. Huge Heart" is incredibly moving. My favorite aspect is that most of the photos are taken from the eye level of the subject, which contributes to the story and helps the viewer relate. The third place winner, "Fighting Chance" really pulls on my senses. The beads of sweat. The fact that they are all shot in black and white. It's a very compelling series.
I don't really care for the photos of politicians. I think it's mostly because there are a million photo ops for public figures like the president and others on Capitol Hill. I also think that taking compelling photographs of warfare or disasters is "easy" in some ways (I am very hesitant to use the word "easy" because I don't want to diminish the challenges faced by these photographers!) I recognize the importance of what these photographers do. They tell the stories of war and disaster through the eyes of the people who experience them on the ground, a different view from the one we get on the 6 o'clock news. However, I think those photos are compelling in and of themselves. It's not hard to make a phenomenal story. The story is there. The creativity exists mostly in how you tell it but you don't have to find it.
The rules for the contest are interesting. I actually like how strict the rules are on altering the photographs. While retouching, cropping, and normal color adjustments were acceptable, drastic alterations were not.
"No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph and the image must be a truthful representation of whatever happened in front of the camera during exposure." (WHNPA Contest website).
While I agree that the rule is important and necessary, I find it a little ironic because so many publications we see everyday include images that are changed excessively. I once saw a magazine cover featuring President Obama in a bathing suit (shirtless) and his skin color was lightened significantly. I don't like the impact these changes can have on how an image or story is interpreted.
The judging wrapped up several hours earlier than the suggested time on the WHNPA website. As such, I arrived at the tail end. However, I would like to spend a moment on the final session: Political Photo of the Year. I like the choice they made. I think the image says a lot about where our country stands at this moment in history. This was a pivotal moment on Capitol Hill and it is one that may define us as a nation. I found it ironic that the other photo in the top two was one of Rand Paul, someone who represents the Tea Party movement, which opposes the very objectives being celebrated in the winning photograph (health care reform). I don't know that I would have chosen either, to be honest. But as far as storytelling goes, I think the winning photo is appropriate.
I thoroughly enjoyed looking through the WHNPA Eyes of History 2010 book of last year's winners. I absolutely love photography and had hoped I would have the opportunity to strengthen those skills, along with my writing, while in graduate school at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism. (Thank goodness for Slice, are there really no other photojournalism classes available to me?!).
Despite my love of photography I had an epiphany as I flipped through last year's winners. I actually relived a little history. I remembered the familiar events some of the photos portrayed more vividly than if I had read a description. For the first time, I realized the actual power of photography. It is so much greater than a gorgeous photo. A compelling photo. An interesting photo. Somehow I never really understood how important photographs are in storytelling, on their own. Without words.
I am excited to have the opportunity to sharpen my own photography skills but I admit that I'm anxious to see how our photos will be judged! I hope there is more clarity in the explanation for what deserves an A (first place, if you will) and what doesn't.
Caption: Me outside the National Geographic Building holding the WHNPA Eyes of History 2010 book. Picture taken by classmate, Ashley S. Westerman, Sunday February 27, 2011.
WHNPA Reflection
I attended the WHNPA event on Saturday, and I witnessed the judging of the feature category and a portion of the pictorial category. The first thing I noticed was how quickly and instinctively the judges (Chick Harrity, William Snyder, Alexandra Avakian and Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy) reacted to the first round of photos when declaring them 'in' or 'out'. More often than not, photos with a striking, clearly identifiable subject would be 'in' and landscape or abstract shots (such as a wide shot of a monument or a field of flowers) would be 'out'. It was clear that this was a contest for journalistic photography of the kind that reports a story, and not simply photos that are pleasing to the eye.
In fact, many of the winning photos were far from pleasant. The top two photos from the feature category were of a Haitian girl with an amputated foot, and a group of soldiers praying in the trenches in Afghanistan. Somber subjects, to be sure, but the photos were full of emotion and able to communicate a story with just a glance. The photo of the praying soldier received second place even though some of the judges pointed out a flaw in the composition. The angle from which the photographer took the picture could have been a little better, but all the judges seemed willing to overlook it, since the image was so powerful and evocative. Initially, it looked as though the third place photo would be of an injured soldier looking at a photograph of his fiance, but it wasn't clear in the image that this is what he was looking at. Only after reading the caption did the judges know what the soldier was looking at, and that he was missing his leg. Certainly this is a moving story, but the photograph did not have the power to tell it on its own. I completely agreed with the judges decision to award third place to a photo of a gay couple before their wedding ceremony. While the caption informs this photo, it is not necessary to read it in order to understand the love and contentment on the couple's faces. Later, in the pictorial category, no judge voted to keep in a photo that I found very intriguing: an image of a young girl's face surrounded by dirt. There was no way to know who the girl was or what the surrounding circumstances were, so the photo had to go.
In addition to preferring photos that were self explanatory, the judges also considered how the photographer came upon the subject. A photo of a person dressed in a Snoopy suit observing a picture of Charles Shulz was taken out of the running for a prize because the judges were unsure if the photographer had come upon the situation naturally. Avakain pointed out that the photographer could have told Snoopy to look at the picture, and it may not have been a "found situation." Conversely, the judges decided to keep a photo in the running for an honorable mention because they liked the idea of the photographer going out to shoot photos of snow and stumbling across the image of an open-top tour bus caught in the storm. The composition was certainly fair--but nothing too noteworthy. I believe it was the "on-the-scene" quality that kept the photo in.
It was refreshing to see the judges leave room for humor among the serious topics represented in the photos. The two photos I mentioned above, of Snoopy and the bus, are certainly not images of war or devastation. One photo that received an honorable mention got quite a laugh from the judges upon reading the caption. Senator Leahy downright guffawed at the line, "The owner, seeing the scene, said Fuck. That's my fucking car. I fucking knew it would be my fucking car," in the caption for a photo of a car swallowed up by a sinkhole on Friendship Blvd. A photo of, "a crawdad out of water and looking for a fight among emergency vehicles along George Washington Parkway after a heavy thunderstorm," also won over the judges, snagging an honorable mention. They responded well to the composition of the photo, which makes great use of color, perspective and selective focus, but also to the fact that the photographer was able to use a run-of-the-mill story to produce a spectacular photo.
In fact, many of the winning photos were far from pleasant. The top two photos from the feature category were of a Haitian girl with an amputated foot, and a group of soldiers praying in the trenches in Afghanistan. Somber subjects, to be sure, but the photos were full of emotion and able to communicate a story with just a glance. The photo of the praying soldier received second place even though some of the judges pointed out a flaw in the composition. The angle from which the photographer took the picture could have been a little better, but all the judges seemed willing to overlook it, since the image was so powerful and evocative. Initially, it looked as though the third place photo would be of an injured soldier looking at a photograph of his fiance, but it wasn't clear in the image that this is what he was looking at. Only after reading the caption did the judges know what the soldier was looking at, and that he was missing his leg. Certainly this is a moving story, but the photograph did not have the power to tell it on its own. I completely agreed with the judges decision to award third place to a photo of a gay couple before their wedding ceremony. While the caption informs this photo, it is not necessary to read it in order to understand the love and contentment on the couple's faces. Later, in the pictorial category, no judge voted to keep in a photo that I found very intriguing: an image of a young girl's face surrounded by dirt. There was no way to know who the girl was or what the surrounding circumstances were, so the photo had to go.
In addition to preferring photos that were self explanatory, the judges also considered how the photographer came upon the subject. A photo of a person dressed in a Snoopy suit observing a picture of Charles Shulz was taken out of the running for a prize because the judges were unsure if the photographer had come upon the situation naturally. Avakain pointed out that the photographer could have told Snoopy to look at the picture, and it may not have been a "found situation." Conversely, the judges decided to keep a photo in the running for an honorable mention because they liked the idea of the photographer going out to shoot photos of snow and stumbling across the image of an open-top tour bus caught in the storm. The composition was certainly fair--but nothing too noteworthy. I believe it was the "on-the-scene" quality that kept the photo in.
It was refreshing to see the judges leave room for humor among the serious topics represented in the photos. The two photos I mentioned above, of Snoopy and the bus, are certainly not images of war or devastation. One photo that received an honorable mention got quite a laugh from the judges upon reading the caption. Senator Leahy downright guffawed at the line, "The owner, seeing the scene, said Fuck. That's my fucking car. I fucking knew it would be my fucking car," in the caption for a photo of a car swallowed up by a sinkhole on Friendship Blvd. A photo of, "a crawdad out of water and looking for a fight among emergency vehicles along George Washington Parkway after a heavy thunderstorm," also won over the judges, snagging an honorable mention. They responded well to the composition of the photo, which makes great use of color, perspective and selective focus, but also to the fact that the photographer was able to use a run-of-the-mill story to produce a spectacular photo.
 | |||
| Here I am inside the theater between judging sessions. (Photo by Victor Contreras) |
 |
| The judges, getting ready for the pictorial category to begin. (Photo by Tricia Smith) |
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)