“I wanted to develop my own desert look,” said Mr. Hoagland, 43. “I was unsure how the journalistic community would take it. It was a form of manipulation. They’d say, ‘That’s not how things look.’ But to me, the way things felt kind of trumped that concern.”

via NYTimes.com.

Recommended Posts


  1. Great images! I sometimes don’t understand how all the fuss over post-processed photojournalistic images is somehow a violation of how things really looked at the time the image was made. Until the development of color film, images came out “manipulated” in black and white. Hoagland’s quote reminds me of what a professor once said, that you remember some of what is heard or seen, but 100% of what you feel. Isn’t creating images that make you feel something more important than following an arbitrary aesthetic rule that supposedly retains the objectivity of a recorded moment in time?

    • I agree completely, Eric! The treatment of these images doesn’t alter the “reality” of what’s depicted, but inform so much more about the scene than what comes straight out of camera.

  2. I totally agree w/ Mr. Hoagland. I presume his images have not been altered in terms of basic journalistic information. The photographic facts are there but like any reporter on site the tone, the emphasis has gone thru the subjective filter of the observer.
    His shots move photojournalism further down the road it always traveled upon. What is dodging and burning and film or paper chioce but a way of importing feeling and tone to an image. Just look at the later work of Gene Smith -one of the great “photojournalists” of the last century.

  3. If you desire to improve your know-how just continue visiting this website and stay up to date with the most up-to-date gossip published right

Comments are closed for this article!