Assigning photography to oversold stories is a very painful lesson to learn in this industry. All stories are sold to some extent, because no one is sitting around in a pitch meeting carefully outlining all the reasons why something might not work but some bear the onerous distinction of an idea that only looks good on paper. The subjects who are sold as good looking, young, healthy and fit are actually quite flabby and boring. The conceit the whole thing hangs on was more theory than fact. The Shangri-La like location is criss-crossed with power lines and it rains every single day.
Early in my career, I’d blissfully go about making assignments to match stories without even a peep in the editorial meeting, assuming all the while that the editors fully grasped the difficulties that might be encountered and that they had an inkling what the person, place or thing they just assigned looked like.
Wrong.
I quickly discovered after a series of meetings where crappy pictures were delivered to match the crappy story and I was left holding the bag, that it was my job to investigate the realities of what was being pitched. I unfortunately turned a few photographers I liked into persona non grata as I bumbled along handing out steaming piles of shit, expecting gleaming diamonds in return. A few figured it out or lucked out but many like me got run over by the fertilizer truck and had to take a lump or two to realize what was going on.
I quickly developed a method in meetings of questioning the kind of pictures we might get in return if we made that assignment and challenged the editors to confront this reality: great stories aren’t just words, they need great pictures to go along with them otherwise they’re just plain crap.
21 Comments
I witnessed this kind of tension every day when I was working at a major Canadian geographical magazine (I was a Production Artist, fly-on-the-wall) between our Photo Editor and the rest of the text driven team. She was all too often the bearer of bad news, bringing a reality check on how to illustrate their words and ideas and encouraged the editors to re-think their approach from the ground up. Most the time, though, she was simply asked to “try harder” to find better images for their sometimes dull stories, and bristled with the feeling that all her efforts were merely decorations for the words.
Amidst financial restructuring (and suspected acrimony what with her being the sometimes lone voice of reason), her position was eliminated (I got laid off as well), and a lower-ranked photo assistant took her place. The main Editor was heard to say: “Well, we’re all going to have to start thinking more visually now.” Grrr.
Interesting confessional Rob.
I think if you worked for me, I’d be stunned that you hadn’t done your homework before the shoot.
Most photo editors are also very thorough and would never get stuck “holding the bag” because they would have done their job before anyone got on a plane.
I hope others can learn from this post.
@ John: “find better pictures” brings back an awful lot of memories.
@ 2.: Don’t be stunned, I learned photo editing the hard way.
@ 2..
I have Zero high-end photo editing experience, but I think the attitude that everyone should magically know their job is a bit naive.
Now I may be about to be smacked down hard for this one, as I am about to make an assumption or two, but so be it. In fact this point could be made both ways.
I am guessing #2 that your work is based in North America. If this is true then you might subscribe to the North American Ideal that on the Job training does not exist. In theory it is talked about, but in practice you are expected to figure out the nuances of professional situation instantly.
As I someone who has worked in completely different field, both in the UK and in North America, I will make the claim that in the UK, you are hired for your potential, not your Day One knowledge. UK employers provide very thorough job orientation and support for new employees. In North America you tend to be dumped into the middle of a job and left to it. UK employer also spend more time and resources when looking for and vetting potential candidates.
In the UK however, once your considered to be up-to speed, mistakes and bad work are much less tolerated.
Of course, #2, you might be based in the UK, which means your point is still valid, but you would be surprised at how inefficient North American hiring and job training practices are.
This is not a UK is better then the USA post, I’m Canadian, and Canada is MUCH worse then both the US and Canada as far as Hiring efficiency.
Sorry…that last sentence should read “Canada is MUCH worse then both the US and UK, as far as hiring efficiency.”
Also, apologies for the lack of grammar. I got excited.
LOL, I love this post Rob. I needed the laugh today too, so thanks for that.
@Rory
I’d agree with you. I’ve always felt in interviews and actual experience that this is the case. Naturally, there is a certain degree of leeway but overall i think employers expect a lot more in that way. Interesting observation you’ve made. I never thought about it before.
Rob is right on with this and I agree with “Another Photo Editor” in as much as SOMEONE at the magazine needs to be doing a little research before they assign jobs, but I don’t think it’s outside of the realm reasonable that some of that weight should fall on the person pitching it in the first place.
You can’t imagine how many jobs I’ve shot where the writer knowingly lied through his teeth to sell a story to a magazine and I have to try to illustrate this fantasy. I should point out that I always let the magazine know what’s going on as soon as I know it, but often they have already spent thousands of dollars and are unwilling make note of the kings lack of clothing at that point.
I will also say that if the editors hire seasoned pros rather than the latest uberkind with a Mark III they will often get feedback before any money is spent. I have, on several occasions, done a little research on a hunch (based on years of getting screwed) and called the editor back with a reality check. Sometimes I lose the job because it gets canceled for lack of reality, sometimes we come up with a similar concept that’s even better only real, sometimes they ask me to go ahead and shoot it anyway. Since I also work in advertising, I’m used to creating, attractive, realistic unreality so depending on the potential consequences of the “inaccurate” story and my current depth of poverty I can choose to accept or not.
I agree totally with Mark, especially the part where the writer oversells a story which turns out to be a visual dud. It’s happened to me a number of times. Sometimes editors appreciate your explaining the reality of the situation to them, but just as often they don’t want to hear it and expect you, their carefully chosen photographer, to make it work. And too often it’s a case of having to deliver editorial images which live up to the fantasies of some editor in New York or Hamburg of how they think something must look rather than accurately portraying the reality of a situation. I’ve just finished an editorial story on cowboys where the editor’s point of visual reference was essentially “Marlboro Man”, an advertising campaign with models and stylists, shot under direction of the photographer and an art director in the most beautiful light. The reality of cowboy life is altogether different. Even if you make such a story look as good as you can it still may end up disappointing due to editors’ unrealistic expectations. And more often than not it will be you, the photographer, who gets remembered for not delivering the pictures that were imagined on a story that probably should never have been given the green light. I’ve learned to ask a lot of questions and ask for time to at least do some preliminary research before saying yes to these kinds of jobs. But if you say no you may risk not being called again, so it’s a difficult decision.
Hmmm…I think my point may have been taken the wrong way.
I took #2’s comment to be implying that Rob, as even as a green photo editor, should have known from day one how out of touch the other editors would be from the realities of the photography.
I was arguing that in the UK, a green photo editor would have received enough on the Job training, preferably with his predecessor, to able to spot bad pitches from the get go.
I took Robs post to be a warning to perspective photo editors as to the dangers of working with other creative pros, as well as providing aspiring photogs with yet another way to please photo editors. Since junior photo editors are more likely to be open to new talent, I guess the creative blade swings both ways here.
I was in no way implying that photographers themselves were given more “job support” in the UK vs. North America.
I’ve been in a few of these sort of mix-ups as a photographer. I think it’s nice of you to point out the shit-to-diamonds situation between you and the photographer. I think that few people in your position would take (at least partial) credit for missing the reality of things prior to execution. I’m sure you’d have no problem pointing the finger at the photog to save your own behind.
I let a magazine run a few of these projects past me before eventually calling it quits with them. It was frustrating shooting under these conditions. Our last shoot seemed to be so poorly realized beforehand (and shot poorly) that creative decided to redo the whole thing. The result? They were unhappy again. I heard this straight from them. “It was harder to execute than we anticipated.”
Question along those lines: When grabbing up a mag to see your published work, should you be surprised to see that it was re-shot and nobody told you they were no longer using your pictures? I’m sure as a photo editor you’ve seen this. Do you take the time to let the photographer know their shot didn’t work out?
When a shoot fails it’s the photo editors fault no matter what. No amount of finger pointing can redirect the blame to someone else. We’re expected to control the weather, subjects and photographers from our office in midtown.
Right.
And just to clarify – this came out the wrong way and I sounded like an arse… “I’m sure you’d have no problem pointing the finger at the photog to save your own behind.”
What I meant was it’d be easy to go that route if one wanted to save ones own behind. Coffee brewing…
Yeah, there’s no way around this. Writers want to write about what they want to write about. They pitch stories because there’s an interesting hook or slant to the idea that made them want to write about it in the first place.
But, as every writer knows, the reality of doing the reporting, the interviews and reviewing other stories or literature on the topic usually lead the writer to question the validity of their original thesis. I’ve almost never *not* seen this happen with a (potentially) good story and a good writer (edtiors are, ahem, another matter; Editor: “Where’s my hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold-story?” Writer: “Actually, turns out it’s more of a hooker-with-no-teeth-and-three-kids story.” Editor: “Can we heart-of-golden it up somehow?”).
When this organic reframing of the story doesn’t happen generally the story sucks anyway or it’s a retread of something that was everywhere 6 months ago. With photography, in the main, there’s no way for this to not happen at the outset, you always get something closer to the reality than the fantasy (unless you spring for makeovers and dental implants for the hooker and her kids).
“to investigate the realities of what was being pitched”
You’ve described a pitfall. But when it succeeds, it’s the making of silk purses out of sows’ ears. This is why the successful photographs are more often thinly-disguised illustration, more often pretend journalism.
It makes sense, then, that new photo editors are hired by editors with zero visual sense. It makes sense that so many photo editors are both immature and without strong visual sensibility. It makes sense that such hiring is so often dull social darwinism.
Marshall wrote:
I think it’s nice of you to point out the shit-to-diamonds situation between you and the photographer.
I call this visual alchemy. It is everywhere in the communications world. It is the effort to turn brown lumpy stuff into gold, and as long as the top editors remain uninformed or naive, it will continue.
It is not because photo editors are untrained. It happens because all assigning editors lack the balls or intelligence to smash a story idea into little bits because they can’t or won’t recognize the writer’s big lie.
Seems to me “turning shit into diamonds” is what they pay us for. Visual acuity and the ability to take a story idea into powerful, original images that serve to complement the power of the words is a photograher’s stock in trade. Some jobs are easier than others, to be sure, but that’s nothing new.
However, I do sense there is a dumbing down, if I can put it that way, in the business that matches what one sees in other visual media today. I believe @15 touches on it here – “This is why the successful photographs are more often thinly-disguised illustration, more often pretend journalism.” Using photography to provide depth and information to a story is becoming less and less important, and using it to add flash and rev-rev-boom-boom to a page layout becomes more important.
Perhaps this just reflects back to us the fact that journalism/ editorial photography is losing its value in the visual marketplace. Just look at the numbers.
Thanks for your honesty, this made me smile.
I have provided crap photos before, all the while trying to communicate to the commissioning editor and creative director that i couldn’t do any spectacular photographs bc the city i was supposed to photograph in the places they wanted was all under construction. not one single clean photo could be done.
in the end they used a handful of my photos of interiors, small, and stock photography big.
but the creative director wouldn’t speak to me at all along the way when i sent in images for proof.
so i must say…i am guilty as charged.
on another note, i’ve found the uk to be woefully pathetic in its hiring. and have found people to always be amazed at how training is an integral part of employment in the u.s. in italy they are actually opposed to training people. they say it’s offensive. no wonder they are where they are…
oh well. different experiences.
As we used to say at my last paper; ‘You can’t polish a turd!’
As a photographer currently working on a local paper (which has no picture editor) I get sent on crap jobs all of the time, by the reporters and the editors.
I’d be very interested to know what those methods are, which you use to question ‘the kind of pictures we might get in return if we made that assignment and challenged the editors to confront this reality’.
Many Thanks
I totally agree this has been such a problem, How do we break out of this idustry … where do we find inisutive and originality??? >.<
Comments are closed for this article!