. . . Photo journalism captures things as they are. . . .
I used to think this was true. The older I get and the more I see the use of “selective moments” the more I think this is distinctly not true for several reasons.
First, though the camera is impartial “itself,” the choice of lens, position, etc., affects the scope of the image and “what portion of reality” it is seeing. These are photographers’ choices.
Second, typically a camera captures some very small fraction of a second. Life and reality isn’t “fractions of seconds,” (at least as we perceive / live it in real human time). So, “the reality” of one 1/125th of a second of “reality” versus the next, or previous, or fifty-some-odd 1/125th fractions later often present a very different “reality” altogether.
Last, given the two above very much “shaped” reality captured by the camera, the editor now chooses what images to tell the “truth” with. Hardly an objective presentation of reality, but another layer of shaped impression to tell “that version of the truth” that suits the editorial policy of the publisher.
All these things have been used for both good purposes, and for ill. We can all think of splendid examples in both directions. So, I no longer am deluded into thinking of photo journalism as in any way representing any sort of objective view of whatever was out in front of the lens.
Rand
