Just Say No To Crack

MP_GS_2007101507_007
Our fireplace shortly after the last quake. Viva California!

I think I just had a thought. Wait, yep, I did. Okay, here it is.

We hear so much these days about the demise of journalism, about how newspapers are dead, ratings and subscriptions are down and hundreds, if not thousands of people are out of work. This truly sucks.

Now there is great journalism being done out there, in places, and there are some tremendous pieces being written, filmed and photographed, but there is also a lot of schlock being thrown at us, and if I had to say, I would guess the schlock far outweighs the great journalism.

Case in point, TV news running the “bear in a tree” story, which they have done in Southern California at least three times in the past few months. I know, I saw it. It’s pathetic, lazy and there is no excuse, with all that is going on, to do this. It proves that they, the media, think we are pretty stupid, and need to be “entertained” more than informed. Also, newspapers covering celebrity events for no real reason other than there are celebrities involved and they want to sell papers, news, whatever. Same with magazines who run celebs on the cover, regardless of the inside content or photo magazines putting supermodels on the cover, regardless of inside content. In my mind, you deserve to lose subscriptions.

But, something even more poignant just peaked my interest, something I think reaches the DNA level of what is wrong with our “media” or journalism world.

Wait for it…wait for it…

The retouched journalist headshot. Am I the only one who finds this REALLY odd.

So let me get this straight. You’re a journalist, and you write the news. You cover issues with “truth and an impartial view,” but your headshot is fake? Now this might seem like nothing to most people, which is precisely why I think it is a big deal.

The journalist is selling an untruthful representation of themselves, but only writing the truth? How does that work? I know, I know, it might seem really inconsequential, but what it does in my mind is get the ball rolling in the wrong direction.

And when I say “retouched” folks, I’m not talking about 1985, blemish removal, I’m talking total cerebral reconstruction. If you don’t know what happens in the world of retouching today, just so you know, we left Kansas a long, long time ago. Gone are the days of blasting away zits, and in are the complete recreation of human beings. Think I’m exaggerating, stop by a retoucher and ask to see the before and after images. You will be amazed, or horrified. In many of the celeb images we see today, there is nothing untouched from head to toe. Heads are reshaped, necks, backs, legs, etc, even hair and feet. Nothing is real. I’ve even seen this disease creeping into the kid photography realm, which in some ways is even more alarming. Let’s get our kids thinking about a completely unrealistic vision of themselves, right from the beginning! That sounds really healthy.

As you can tell, I detest even the idea of retouching. It’s fake. And for me, it stands for precisely the opposite of what photography, or journalism for that matter, is all about. For me the math is simple, camera + moment = reality.

And now I see the same being done with the headshots of those we hold to be “watchdogs of the people.” Well I don’t buy it.

I think the problem with journalism can be traced to this exact thing. Doubt. Suspicion. Skepticism. Misrepresentation.

How can you misrepresent your own image, and ask to be believed?

Are you a celebrity, like the folks you are writing about? Are you part of the news? Or, are you strictly a vessel of delivery?

Me, I think many journalists have become part of the story, and that is where the foundation shows signs of a major crack. In my mind, you can’t do that. If you do, gone is your credibility.

I shouldn’t hear you. I shouldn’t see you, especially a fake impression of you, but what I should see and feel is the only the power of your work. And I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that what you say is the truth, or as close to the truth as you could possibly get.

I don’t feel that right now. I see those glamor shot mugs and think, “What’s next?”

This really strikes a nerve with me. To me, journalism is sacred, not casual, nor should it be cowed to the level of entertainment shows, and frankly I think that is what is happening. Me, I’m going to boycott any report, story or project that is accompanied by any perfect skin, perfect teeth, 30 pounds slimmer than they actual are, anchor, reporter, photographer, etc. I’ll probably be left without my news, but there are worse things in life.

I’ll leave you with one last experience. Last night I found a documentary on one of the few channels I get. It was really good. I only watched a few minutes, but what I did see was well done. Then suddenly we went to commercial. And there she was. A well known celebrity, only it really wasn’t her, it was some bastardized, digitally retouched, motion version of her, and I mean REALLY INSANELY OVERDONE OVERTOUCHED GHASTLY HORRIFYING VERSION OF THIS POOR WOMAN WHO UNDOUBTEDLY SIGNED OFF ON THIS HORROR SHOW. I was mesmerized as this creature stared back at me with lifeless eyes, or at least what was left of those eyes, and skin that was completely devoid of, well, skin. It was the orangeish, plastic looking stuff that is left when retouchers take all the human parts of the person away. I felt like my soul had been discarded in a roadside bin.

Is this really what we want people? Really? I can’t imagine this is where we all thought the ship was headed. I’m so glad we developed these tools, they are so perfect for overpowering nature and providing us with completely unrealistic material.

Me, I’m going to write a letter. Yep, a letter, specifically NOT an email. And I’m going to send it to the company that made this horror flick. They need to hear it, from at least one person. Might as well be me.

Onward and upward.

Personally I'm Glad It's Gone

MP_Pentax_Roids
Ignore these images, they suck.

A few months ago, when Polaroid died a horrible death for perhaps the last time, I read an article about the demise of this legendary photographic entity.

I normally wouldn’t read an article like this, probably because I find these topics depressing and subjects that have been covered to death. Our news cycle is like a binge eater at the Sizzler buffet, voracious and nearly unstoppable.

But in this case, I’m glad I did read this thing. What got me wasn’t the demise of Polaroid, which is a bummer, but what got me was some “digitally inclined” chap they interviewed about the demise of Polaroid.

In short, this person, more or less said, “Good, I’m glad it’s dead, people should be using digital anyway.”

I just wanted to say how much I agreed with this messenger of all things digital. I mean how could anyone like Polaroid? Or what we are left with Fujiroid?

An instant picture? Bad. Clearly.

Unless it’s a digital instant picture, then I can see that being just fine.

And getting a tiny print that looks incredible, I detest that too.

The only tiny, instant prints I like require me to download, sit at a computer, buy ink and paper, and run through countless drop down menus. I LOVE doing this. So much fun, and after twenty five years of the world’s most expensive R&D, CLEARLY better than that lousy Polaroid crap.

I’m also glad I never have to look at those sensational journal books what were made from these small prints, you know the ones in glass cases at the gallery shows. All those famous photographers, who for decades kept log books of all their shoots, findings, snapshots, castings, etc, I’m SO glad all that is gone. I mean who wants to look at that stuff? Who wants a history of what we’ve done? The history I dream about is filled with racks of hard drives and links to “online galleries” which we all know by now are the ONLY way to look at work, especially on small monitors with slow connections, that way we can take our time.

My final point is that although I’m truly gleeful that the “Evil Roid” is now gone, I’m sure glad someone scanned those infamous Polaroid borders, because it sure has saved me a lot of post-processing time when I’m faking my digital images to LOOK like the dreaded Polaroid. So glad we don’t have to deal with this stuff anymore. Enough already.

I’m sure glad these “digitally inclined” are watching out for our best interests and are pioneering the way in copying the old school ways with all things new. I think we are all better for it and our robust and vibrant industry is proof of their genius.

Now, as soon as I upgrade about forty pieces of electronic equipment in my office I can get back out there and start shooting.

Wish me luck!