Video Tips from the Ink-Stained Set

[Lenslinger]

Hi all,

It seems my recent missive on newspaper video and the NPPA awards (http://lenslinger.blogspot.com/2007/03/and-winner-aint.html) has stirred up much rancor among the many print outlets embracing our medium. Apparently we TV types have been doing it wrong all these years. Now that the web is here, newspaper staffs will forge new frontiers in video newsathering, rendering we cavemen camera-types irrelevant. Why, to read their many blogs, it's already happening.

Now, I've nothing against newspapers getting into video. The internet has leveled the distribution playing field and as anyone who's watched college freshmen lip-sync boy-bands ballads on YouTube can tell you, a revolution IS upon us. But the idea that newspaper staffs are about to make us look all the sillier with their clearly superior video products... that memo I did not receive. Luckily, I've been educated as of late by the many newspaper-video pundits who took such umbrage at my recent post. I though the b-roll nation may benefit as well from their sage words, so I clipped a few for your perusal.

The TV people don’t get it. Refuse to get it. Advantage newspapers. Thank you. You make my job easier. There is a reason newspapers are kicking the butt of local online TV on video viewership and revenue (it’s a fact, look it up). Go read: Innovator’s Dilemma. Then maybe you’ll get it. Until then, we aren’t even talking the same language. After Lenslinger reads it, then maybe he’ll be somebody I can pay attention to on things like online video. There’s no doubt there’s a lot of crap newspaper video out there, but there is also a ton of stuff, that as a matter of being online video, is way better than 98 percent of the stuff being produced for online by TV people. Go read my post with comments from Chris Jennewein about TV news … very much correct. TV news lost its way about the same time cameramen lost hand cranks on their cameras. --- Howard Owens (http://www.howardowens.com/2007/new-standards-needed-for-judging-online-video/)

They had hand cranks on TV news cameras? Who knew...Apparently Angela Grant. She has a few suggestions for us to follow if we're ever gonna keep up with newspapers...

1. TV stations get their heads out of their asses and start creating video content specifically for the Web. If they do that NOW, the TV photogs will clearly produce better work than newspapers are producing (NOTE: I haven’t seen any indication TV stations will pull their heads out of their asses). 2. Newspaper folks continue on the upward trajectory they are already following. They learn from their mistakes and get better (NOTE: This is happening as we speak). If I was a TV photog interested in online video, I would quit my job at the station and go work for a newspaper. ---- I do sympathize with your worries about the necessity of hiring more crews if you're going to produce more web-only video. But my accusation about the heads in asses thing remains ... Your management is ignoring the online video consumption habits of your viewers; They're not going to stop wanting those videos ... What they're going to do is go to your local newspaper's web site for video! That sucks for ya'll. I know it's not your fault. The shift must come from the higher-ups. -- Angela Grant (http://angelagrant.blogspot.com/2007/03/drama-for-your-momma.html)

Man, just when you thought Rosenblum was a gas-bag. Now we're getting schooled in video from ink-stained wretches...

I prefer Chuck Fadely's (http://newspaper-video.blogspot.com/) approach: Very few people at newspapers have a grasp of how vastly different narrative video is from what they're used to doing. Good video storytelling is emotional and temporal. Newspaper editors try to avoid emotion and seek to capture information at a particular point in time. Newspapers' stock-in-trade is providing facts and figures -- something video is ill-suited to provide.

Per request, Chuck provides example of The Best in Newspaper Video. (http://newspaper-video.blogspot.com/2007/03/good-newspaper-web-video.html) I'll post on the selections soon, once I finish watching them. I urge you to check them out and leave your own impressions. Meanwhile, be nice to that stills shooter juggling the handycam at the crime tape. Seems these guys are pioneering a whole form we dim-witted TV types can't even comprehend yet...

[Buck]

Don't these clowns realize many tv ARE creating content for their web sites? We put full, unedited interviews up on our sites.

[punky cameraman]

Lenslinger, keep up the good fight.

I’m enjoying it immensely! All these hard feelings because someone
didn’t win an award. Cry me a river.
May I tell you my sad newspaper award tale?

Years ago, I was reading an article about convergence.
See, one of our local stations was mixing forces with its newspaper and website. All hail the
Latest greatest idea in media ….. the triple play!

Well, in this article there was a quote from the editor of the “other” newspaper in town.
He proudly exclaimed that they didn’t need TV! In fact, he mentioned that they had
Just won a BIG award for their coverage of a big spot news story with NO help from
TV.
There was only one problem. I remember that big spot news story and in fact when the
Suspect was finally caught I was there. Unknown to me, so were two of my fellow staff
members. Later that afternoon, a still photographer from the ”other” newspaper
Showed up at my station to get a shot of the suspect.

I asked him “which angle do you want?”

Our suspect photo was part of their headline …. Above the fold.

My co-workers and I received no award or mention.

AH, the emperor really has no idea his arse is showing.

punky

[cameradog]

Per request, Chuck provides example of The Best in Newspaper Video. (http://newspaper-video.blogspot.com/2007/03/good-newspaper-web-video.html) I'll post on the selections soon, once I finish watching them. I urge you to check them out and leave your on impressions.

Okay, I'll bite. I'll try to write this as constructively as possible, the way I would critique a young photog's work.

The Hurricane Katrina (http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/photography/2006/katrina_anniversary/) piece at the Dallas Morning News was nice. But it also wasn't video. It was simply a slide show with some soundbites. The newspaper types want us to judge something like this not on the quality of the video or storytelling, but on the quality of the pictures. In other words, they want us to judge it on the same aesthetic that stills would be judged. But stills and video are not the same thing and don't carry the same aesthetic.

And even if we were to judge them under the aesthetics of stills, I'm afraid that this piece was not even close to the similar piece the Times-Picayune put together that ran on C-SPAN last year. That one was so moving that it made this one look like pictures from a kid's birthday party.

The other suggestion from the DMN, Yolanda's Crossing (http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/spe/2006/yolanda/), actually demonstrates a major flaw in the way some newspaper types are approaching video. They're not playing to video's strength, but are instead thinking of it as stills put in motion with a soundtrack. Where stills operate in two dimensions, video operates in four dimensions. Stills capture a single moment in time, rendering it in the two dimensions of width and height. Video, on the other hand, captures a range of time (the fourth dimension) and depicts it in the two dimensions of width and height, with the third dimension of depth strongly implied by motion within the frame. When you simply show video of still pictures, no amount of slow zooms into or out of the picture will lend it the strength of real motion video in presenting the third and fourth dimensions.

Thus, in the Yolanda piece there was actually very little video. Again, it was mostly stills. And worse, the stills didn't really even do much to tell the story about this girl being raped. Much of the "video" had nothing to do with the apparent subject of the story at all. I was left scratching my head, wondering what the point of that piece was exactly.

Not to mention that the video that WAS there was rather poor quality, shaky work that truly looked like it was shot by an amateur. I do believe that if you had given that story to one of the great storytellers from Minneapolis or Denver, you would have seen something magical. But even a rank and file photog from a middle market, given that shoot as a feature, would have turned a more interesting story.

Next up was a weather feature (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBjpyKWaZ2E) from The Chicago Tribune. I was actually excited at first, because the reporter found a really good character to center the story around. The sound from the woman was great. But then he quickly began demonstrating his inexperience, missing numerous opportunities to shoot good sequences that would have helped tell the story more smoothly. The lack of sequences led to numerous jump cuts. Then came the ultimate VJ horror, the up-the-nose interview with the good Samaritan. Not only was it up the nose, which is horrifically unflattering to ANYONE shot that way, he framed the guy against a bright overcast sky. These were simply terrible, rookie mistakes that would have gotten me a serious reprimand at most of the places I've worked.

The newspaper types don't seem to think these blatant errors are that big a deal. But it simply makes the video look cheap. For all their talk of higher quality in newspapers in the journalism, subject matter and writing, I don't understand why they would then make excuses for such poor quality in the video. So quality only matters in the things at which you already excel?

Drumline (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/01/09/VI2007010900786.html) from The Washington Post is the best yet, presenting a visually and aurally interesting subject. Unfortunately it still had problems. First off, there was no reason to drain out the color and shoot it in black and white. You're a newspaper. You're supposed to be dealing in accuracy. Is the world in black and white? I don't think so. That kind of gimmick, just to make something look "cool," has no place in news.

The bigger problem was the point of the piece itself. It didn't tell a story at all. Another great strength of video that is often missed by these people is its ability to take individual pictures and put them together so that the edited product is greater than the sum of its individual frames. This piece was little more than a string of random shots strung together without any kind of story structure at all.

What's really sad about that is that a drum piece, like any piece of music, has an internal story structure of its own. The different drums are characters in the story, and they interact. One says something. Another will answer. Point and counterpoint. Action and reaction. Tension and release. Hell, most music follows a three act story structure by introducing a melody (or in this case, a rhythm), having various voices develop the melody with harmony, then resolve at the end in a conclusion. This guy completely missed that most basic and obvious opportunity for a story structure, instead just stringing together a bunch of images the way he might put together a photo essay for a magazine.

Even without the music's own story structure, he could have found or even imposed another story structure. It could have been as simple as the first act being practice outside, followed by a second act inside, with a conclusion on the field itself. Or it could have started with the drums, then introduced the dancers, then combined them at the end. No, we just got a string of pictures with little greater meaning.

I will say that the video itself was fairly creative, save for a few minor flaws (please, don't shoot a black man against a white sky). The close up shots were great, and I was happy to see good close shots of faces. But the good video just makes the final product that much more sad to watch, because where it could have been great, it ended up being no better than average.

That's about all I can comment on for now, because watching these with a critical eye has given me a bit of a headache. But even with those few examples, I'm seeing a definite pattern in where the newspaper types are deficient, not only in skill but in basic approach to video and in a misunderstanding of video's strengths and weaknesses. If those pieces are the best that they had to offer for the contests, it's no wonder there were no first place winners.

[Baltimore Shooter]

Great critique CameraDog! Those ink pushers could learn a lot from your post.

Warren

[Stoney]

I watched the drumline piece, and it was really nicely done. I didn't read the companion story, but I can guess what it was about. This video was just a music video, though, and not a stand-alone story. So, if I had read the written story and then watched the piece, I would have context.

It was well shot and pretty cool, like a feature should be. In the end, I am not really sure what to do with it except say, "Hey, that was neat."

I think that there is a fundamental difference between tv for the web and tv for broadcast. Right now, web video is complementary and doesn't need to be stand-alone. It is what it is. Newspapers can and should do this type of stuff. However, unless bandwidth quality gets much better (and users change their habits) who wants to watch this stuff for very long on a small screen (smaller than a tv screen)? It's just candy, or at best a convenient distraction (like a Watchman at a sporting event) to me...

Traditional TV for broadcast is just a different animal and will be for a while, until the technical and habitual factors are worked out.

As far as TV vs. print? Yawn. There are self-righteous people in all professions. What a boring bunch of arguments.

[Chicago Dog]

Great critique CameraDog! Those ink pushers could learn a lot from your post.

They could, but they won't.

So many of them are so eager to jump onto the TV vs. Print Journalism bandwagon, they're totally blind to the point. Most of those who were involved with the flare-up after Lenslinger's initial post had absolutely no idea that Lens wasn't invoking any personal attacks.

It was actually pretty funny watching a bunch of fact-crunchers jump to the conclusion that Lens was being an elitist snob. He was clearly making very good points. I'm guessing those who took offense were those who have some sort of holier-than-thou attitude when it comes to us TV shooters.

Oh well. This transition simply means more job availabilities for you and me in the long run.

Traditional TV for broadcast is just a different animal and will be for a while, until the technical and habitual factors are worked out.

Precisely. The technology for this "overnight transition" that we apparently keep hearing about simply does not exist. There's no possible way a newspaper-turned-media-outlet will be able to handle a load of viewers watching some live breaking news. It's impossible.

As far as TV vs. print? Yawn. There are self-righteous people in all professions. What a boring bunch of arguments.

But ... you gave input?
;)

[cameragod]

Personally I have no objection to newspapers doing video. What annoys me is the half assed way they are going about it. The assumption they can hand someone/anyone a handycam and they will shoot well enough for the web. Howard gets defensive about his 12 + years in web publishing but is happy to ignore the experience of people like me a 20 + year cameraman. I think I do know something about my craft. As a freelancer I do a lot of deferent stuff including for web only shoots. Along with the good basics there are a bunch of extra things to think about. It’s not easy.
If Newspapers are serious about competing with TV news my phone is always on and I’ll be happy to shoot them some award winning stuff, I already have eleven. ;)

[cameradog]

I think that there is a fundamental difference between tv for the web and tv for broadcast. Right now, web video is complementary and doesn't need to be stand-alone.

It IS complementary, but I strongly disagree that it doesn't need to be able to stand alone. You're going to have three types of people encountering these stories on the web:

1. Those who will read the story for information and ignore the video.

2. Those who will go straight to the video in the hopes of having the story spoon fed to them without having to read anything.

3. Those who will watch or read one part and develop an interest in the story, then watch or read the other part to see if there's any additional information. Sadly, these last viewers are in the minority on most stories.

So that leaves the first and second types making up most of your audience. The newspaper folks know about the first type. That's their regular readership. Knowing this audience, they would never dream of leaving their articles incomplete. Can you imagine them ever writing a really sketchy article and telling their readers that if they want the whole story they have to watch the video? The articles certainly have to stand alone.

But then to say that the video doesn't need to stand alone is to ignore that second type of viewer that doesn't want to read. That viewer is going to want a complete story. It doesn't have to be THE complete story, covering everything that's covered in the article. It can be a sidebar, another angle on the story covered in the associated print article. But even if it is related, it MUST be able to stand on its own, for the large percentage of viewers who won't ever bother to read the article.

Even if you just throw away your #2s altogether, you still need the video to be able to stand alone to keep from losing your third type as well. If you show the more visually oriented people in that group video that doesn't make much sense on its own, it won't catch their interest. There's so much information out there that they'll move on to something else and won't read your article. If you give your more literary-oriented people incomplete video, the article may lead them to the video the first few times, but you'll quickly lose them. They'll see you have video, remember that the crap you post to accompany your writing isn't worth their time and decline to click.

That Yolanda piece from Dallas is a perfect example. It could have been very compelling, so compelling in fact that your #3s who watched it first would want more. That piece as it is doesn't tell a story well enough to get a viewer intrigued to the point that he would want to get more information. I doubt many of those who watch the video bother to click through to the print.

From the other direction, the people who read the print may click through to the video, but I seriously doubt they'll watch it all the way through. They don't need it. They already know the story.

Damn. By not having video that can stand by itself while also complementing the print article, you have alienated almost your entire audience.

What's sad about this is that we have examples of exactly what this video should do already, from within the television business. Have you ever worked on a single topic special? One that comes to mind for me was a 30 minute special we did on a deceased politician. Every story was about this guy. Every story examined a different aspect of his life or career. These stories all worked in complementary fashion to create a whole.

And yet each one of them could stand on its own, be taken completely out of context and not only make perfect sense, but still be compelling to watch. Because each piece was compelling to watch, at the end of each piece viewers wanted more. So they watched the next story. And we ended up with a very highly-rated program.

But if the first story hadn't made any sense on its own... Well, I think most of our audience would have switched over to Wheel of Fortune.

[Lenslinger]

From newspaper web-video guru Howard Owens (http://howardowens.com), a request for web-only video you've produced...

"I fully get that most TV shooters are outstanding at their craft. Nobody has ever disputed that. But the question I still have is, are they ready for the web? Clearly, newspaper shooters have a lot to learn. Nobody disputes that. But I think newspaper video producers are getting a lot closer in spirit to getting the web than what I see from TV folks, which as far as I can tell is just repurposed TV video — even if it’s outtakes and extended quotes, it’s still TV video and not web video. It’s March 12, 2007. What exists on the web right now that is an example of great web video shot by a TV shooter? I’d love to see it, as I’m sure many of my print-side colleagues would to see t it, because I’m sure we could learn from it."

Mr. Howard regards video that's appeared on-air as well to be 're-purposed' and not applicable. I'm not sure the viewer makes that same distinction. At any rate, feel free to send him example URL's or list them here and I'll do the heavy lifting.

(To those already tiring of this debate, standby by for the next available thread on lightbulbs and fingergrease.)

[FTOJRLST]

OK. Then how about some web stories or even pictures(from newspaper sites) that won't ever make the paper in some form or fashion. And I'll take the analogic stance of Mr. Owens that no material, pictures or text, from any given story should appear in the paper version to be considered legitimate web content.

(pause)

Oh wait....It's not going to happen. Only websites without a business link to a newspaper or TV Station are going to have video exclusively for the web. It's bad business sense to do otherwise.

I actually think TV stands more of a chance of getting something on the web that never airs due to time contraints, but with stations producing hours upon hours of news every day it's already hard to fill the newscasts and keep the viewer from turning away.

Where the web does come in handy for news organizations is in it's unlimited capacity for giving users whatever amount of content the end user decides he/she wants to consume.

Whether that means putting up extended video of a story or just the same thing that aired, it's up to the viewer/user which they want to see. Some people want to re-watch or heard about a story from someone else and other viewers may be looking for more in-depth coverage that the 90 second version didn't provide. (and by no means am I saying that TV Stations are getting that extended coverage on the net)

It's just a matter of having enough time in the day to get the video or other content processed and online.

To say that we should have content exclusively for the web is nonsensical.

What our main objective should be is to draw our TV Viewers to our websites and visa versa.

[cameradog]

From newspaper web-video guru Howard Owens (http://howardowens.com), a request for web-only video you've produced...

Irrelevant.

The conventions of video and film do not change very much at all with a new medium. It doesn't matter if the material is being shown on the web, or in a 2000 seat theater, or on a cellphone, or on a regular old television. Jump cuts are still jump cuts. Backlit interviews are still backlit. And up-the-nose interviews still look like sh*t.

These guys are not the first to try this kind of argument. Many years ago, even before the current crop of high quality digital cameras, people were trying to make feature length films on video instead of film, primarily to save money. Many of these video "gurus" put forth the same arguments: that the standards that applied to film should not apply to features made on video. Therefore, they said, poor camerawork and jarring editing was okay, because it was part of the new aesthetic of "video features."

And now you can hardly find any of the crap they made, because nobody wanted to watch it. Oh, it saturated the festivals, but very little of it was picked up for distribution. The best among them were drawn the the Dogma 95 movement and achieved limited recognition as legitimate filmmakers, but even they abandoned some of their new rules in favor of traditional techniques. Some "certified" Dogma 95 films, which were never supposed to use lights or tripods under the "new" rules of video filmmaking, ended up getting shot with tripods and lights after all. Lars von Trier himself even ended up shooting on a sound stage, and Jennifer Jason Leigh got a film certified Dogma 95 after using track dollies.

So, no matter how hard Howard tries to excuse bad quality by claiming there's some kind of new aesthetic in play, he's simply wrong. The audience will not judge the quality of the work by the standards he tries to define for his convenience. The work will be judged on conventions that have developed for ALL motion picture media over the last hundred years. He cannot escape the fact that the web video WILL be compared to more polished work seen on television.

There is thus no reason for his desperate attempts to separate "web video" from any other kind of video. It's all going to be subject to the same rules, whether he likes it or not. What he SHOULD be doing is learning how to use the conventions, not whining because he didn't get an award.

Here again, what I find hilarious is that if we photogs were to suddenly start writing stories for our stations' websites, but with bad grammar, bad spelling and lots of street slang, Howard would be quick to criticize us as not having the proper tools to do the job and not adhering to the rules of writing. Yet, he's defending people who are venturing into video without learning the grammar of video. That's really what we're talking about here. A jump cut in a web package or a package for broadcast is the grammatical equivalent of confusing their and they're in print. An up-the-nose interview against a white sky is the equivalent of breaking into ebonics.

Is it okay with Howard if we write really crappy copy? Somehow I don't think he would approve of that.

[Baltimore Shooter]

Howard gets defensive about his 12 + years in web publishing but is happy to ignore the experience of people like me a 20 + year cameraman.


Hey, any teenager can design & publish a website.

Warren

[amp]

Going from newspaper to a visual medium like video is tough. Here in Richmond, I am proud to work with Mark Holmberg. He left the Richmond Times-Dispatch recently and came over to us at WTVR. He is a guy who knows EVERYONE in Richmond, and everyone knows him. But, it has been a learning curve for him. Mark is an excellent interviewer, so miking him up and just letting him ask questions is good stuff. He is still learning how to sound and look right for tv. He has come to our station with a very open and ready to learn and make a difference attitude. I am sure with the growing presence of the web, more newspaper people with try video. Yes, you are still telling a story, but would you expect me to leave tv news after 13 years, jump to into being a newspaper reporter and know everything? That is where Howard is missing the point.

[Baltimore Shooter]

Damn CameraDog, you're on fire! Another spot on post!

Warren

[Baltimore Shooter]

Here again, what I find hilarious is that if we photogs were to suddenly start writing stories for our stations' websites, but with bad grammar, bad spelling and lots of street slang, Howard would be quick to criticize us as not having the proper tools to do the job and not adhering to the rules of writing.

You mean like this:

STABBIN' SEND ONE MAN TO HOSPITAL
by: Photog MAN

Yo, check it. Dis is what happened on da Wesside ton-nite. One man got himself stabbed over a cigarette. The victim, LaShawn Jownston had dis to say:

"Da too homies was sittin' on the step and I ax 'em for a Newport. Den, one of 'um got up and stabbed me wit a nif and I was like 'What'cha do dat fo'. Den I saw do blood runnin' out my stomach and I called 911 from my cell fone".

Da suspecs, 20-somthin' Antwan Smif and 19 year ol Luther Leroy Jones wuz charged wif a salt and battery. I didn't see what kind of battery it was, but if I wuz to guess, I'd say it wuz a D cell battery.

Dat's what happened on the Wesside to-nite. Peace, I'm out!
-------------------------------------------------

Warren

[Newspaper-Video]

Cameradog and Lenslinger, thanks for the critiques. We newspaper photographers are eager to learn.

The mad rush to do video on newspaper sites is driven by one thing: ad revenue. Those 15 second pre-roll ads have the bean counters salivating because a) they're verifiable hits and b) they have higher rates. So corporate is handing out point and shoot video cams and telling their staffs to go at it.

Total newspaper audience is growing despite declines in print circulation. The web audience is growing like crazy and already makes up 10 percent or so of many newspapers' revenue. So newspapers are gung-ho about producing web-only content. There is very little overlap between the print readers and the web readers. Newspapers see their future on the web.

And yes, many newspapers, including my own, produce content for the web that never sees print. That is my job description: do video for the web. I do stories that don't run in the paper.

Please, make a distinction between the photogs who are trying to learn to do this video stuff well and the vocal pundits on the web who are saying that any video is good video.

I'm one of the still-shooter-turned-video guys. I've spent 25 years on the streets shoulder to shoulder with you TV folks and I freely admit I don't know a damn thing about crafting a story in video yet. But I'm learning. And I apologize for all those years with my camera shutter ruining your audio. I had no idea. Honestly.

(Oh, by the way, Newspapers ARE doing live video webcasts. The Appleton, Wisconsin Post-Crescent has been live broadcasting a trial for three weeks. And the Asbury Park Press in New Jersey has been the pool feed for a trial there. The world is changing.)

[Lenslinger]

Please, make a distinction between the photogs who are trying to learn to do this video stuff well and the vocal pundits on the web who are saying that any video is good video.

I'm one of the still-shooter-turned-video guys. I've spent 25 years on the streets shoulder to shoulder with you TV folks and I freely admit I don't know a damn thing about crafting a story in video yet. But I'm learning. And I apologize for all those years with my camera shutter ruining your audio. I had no idea. Honestly.


I like this guy...

[cameradog]

And I apologize for all those years with my camera shutter ruining your audio. I had no idea. Honestly.


Ha! Sweet justice.

One thing I would suggest to you and others like you who really want to pursue excellence is to try to attend an NPPA television workshop, either the big one in Norman or one of the traveling seminars. I personally despise the NPPA for its brainwashing, cultish tendencies, but the reality is that there just aren't any other workshops of the type out there that teach techniques for achieving excellence in news video. The "videojournalist" seminars that are out there to take your money simply don't address the quality issues addressed by the NPPA seminars.

And let me be clear that I'm not suggesting it so that newspaper photogs become clones of television photogs. You're smart people (except maybe for that Howard guy), capable of adapting good technique to your own uses. If you don't get too caught up in the NPPA hype, you can take away some good ideas and leave behind the audiovisual masturbation NPPA often advocates.

[punky cameraman]

for the print folks surfing in
my i add this suggestion ..... watch as much TV as you can stand.
see what you like and dislike.
personally i have really enjoyed the recent "frontline" series on PBS
and as i have watched it i have made mental notes about what
"I" thought worked and what didnt.
everyone has their own style and you have to find yours.
getting toward the middle of my career i look back on tape and
can see the changes ..... what i thought was cool or what worked
at the time .....

i ramble ...... so, just watch as much tv as you can.

i spent a good chunk of the last nppa convention going into the
print seminars and talking with the print photogs whos work i
enjoy ..... there is much to be learned from each other
in fact one of the reasons i have kept my membership is the nppa
magazine and the "idea" that a photographer is a photographer
no matter what the medium.

punky

[Stoney]

It IS complementary, but I strongly disagree that it doesn't need to be able to stand alone. You're going to have three types of people encountering these stories on the web:

1. Those who will read the story for information and ignore the video.

2. Those who will go straight to the video in the hopes of having the story spoon fed to them without having to read anything.

3. Those who will watch or read one part and develop an interest in the story, then watch or read the other part to see if there's any additional information. Sadly, these last viewers are in the minority on most stories.

I thought about my online viewing habits after reading this post. You know, I think I am a number 2... or possibly a number 3 (in reverse, I watch and then read). But that is my biased tv background. Regardless, you make a good point here.

Also, when I say this argument is boring (the argument that tv folks don't understand web and newspaper folks do) I don't mean to imply that the topic of web video is boring. Quite the opposite, which is why I post on it. It is a new frontier, for sure. However, the "mine is bigger than yours" type of thinking is lame and I have a problem with such juvenile thinking in journalism circles.

[Lensmith]

From my perspective...some of this discussion is moot.

While some newspapers are trying to train their current employees to shoot video, many newspapers are seeing the economic reality in the world and making partnerships with existing television stations in their market. They don't waste time and money training their employees to do something they can get for free elsewhere.

Both get something out of the deal which translates into money saved, which we all know trumps any need for "best" when it comes to covering news.

The newspapers get the video they need/want for their web sites and the stations also get an exchange of information and shared story resources.

At my current station we do a lot of web content that never hits air. Sure they put most of our news stories on the station web site and the local paper even links those stories from their site. We also run a lot of unedited interviews for viewers. We all know a TV news story uses a very small portion of any interview so at our station they often offer viewers the chance to see/hear the entire interview.

Many weekends our regular early newscast is interrupted for network sports coverage but we still produce a show that is seen on the web...by someone, somewhere. It's a regular newscast that never goes through the transmitter. Just the internet, but we're still doing live shots and meeting that afternoon deadline just as if it was a regular show.

I also end up feeding a lot more events live for "web only" viewing. Everything from news conferences to fireworks shows.

Our station also does these "slide shows" where they take our video and pull a dozen shots off the tape and turn it into a series of stills which viewers click on. The reason for the stills is many work place computer networks don't allow for video feeds to their computers but will allow the stills.

Our computer chief at my station is a long time friend as well and he was showing me the hits we get on these little slide shows. It's amazing how big that number is and from all over the world!

It also indicated to me how still photography, especially covering news events, is going to face much stiffer competition for news viewers.

For what it's worth...the post by "newspaper-video" above, to me, represents the attitude of most of the newspaper still photogs I know. They aren't the ones with the long winded, out of touch responses defending a position they know little about.

The guys like "newspaper-video" are going to do just fine and always have my respect. ;)

[Buck]

Here's an example of some web only content produced by the Washington Post. Granted, it will never win an NPPA award (so what) because it's not geared toward winning a photography award, but I found it interesting to watch. Simple and clean and the people have something to say. A good way to get your audience involved.

http://specials.washingtonpost.com/onbeing/

I have no idea how many hits it gets.

[F4 Fan]

Newspaper-video – Might I suggest the Platypus Workshop that is put on by the Digital Journalist; it just concluded earlier this week. It is geared for still shooters making the transition to video. May be well worth the money as everyone has the same goals and objectives, and it requires none of the kool-aid that NPPA seems to require its participants to drink.

And watch PBS, The Discovery Channel, National Geographic and classic films to see how good story telling is done. Trying to copy local news will only put your audience to sleep.

[couryhouse]

Don't hit me.. I still have a 35 mm newsreel camera with a hand crank....

but then again we also have a communications museum here also.
(and always looking for more)


This is a good topic... That I knew was soon to be addressed..

[Mr MoOz]

It is interesting to listen to the comments on both sides of this. A lot of it sounds like trash talk 'tween two teams trying to make it to the finals. The finals where only one gets to keep their jobs. I think anybody who has honestly shot with both tool sets, knows that it ain't easy to be great in both.

As a TV guy who can shoot a mean still, what is so infuriating about the vocal and derogatory comments from the still brothers; is that they forget that we do day turns, we put stuff on the web that is boring but news.

News, real news is boring at times. The guys I am working with put the "State of the City" speeches, breaking news, Pressers of note, all LIVE up on the web. That Death mobile with the stick in it is or best asset for web.

What they (still photogs) hold up to be great stuff, is usually just an MTV'ed clip of poor stills and/or shaky video slapped with some music. Very little of it has a beginning, middle , and an end. Usually the shoot to edit cycle is 2 days to a week or more. Then the kicker comes with the arrogant "Nya Nya's."

We both have a lot to share and in the long run there will be very few who can do both great, the rest are specialists or generalist. As photographers we do need to be aggressive with management in getting our stories out on the web, and generate work for the web.

The sad thing is, what generates clicks is like the mad squirrels we had online, 390,000+ hits in one day, not hard news.

It is going to be a fun time.

[Alaska cameradude]

Well, I don't shoot news anymore, I started my own production company because TV stations pay is utter crap, but I've got to tell you, that the way I remember it anyways....everyone that was a photog at the shop I last worked (KTUU in Anchorage, Alaska) could shoot circles around these newspaper guys. Of course even though they are a small station, they did win small station of the year from NPPA so I dunno if that's a fair comparison. But the stuff I saw and still see on their local news is so much better that there is no comparison. I applaud those guys for getting out and trying it, but really, I dunno why so many people think that "it's just a video camera....anyone can do it!" Ya I have a word processor program on my computer too.....maybe I should put out a "newspaper".....see it actually helps if you know how to put together a story in "video language". I've worked with reporters before who were national award winning newspaper reporters, and they were not much as a TV reporter. They didn't understand how to "write to video" or use the video as the powerful medium it is....or how to use nat sound. They would just write like it was a newspaper story, ignoring the fact that we had NO FREAKING WAY to show something .....for example they would write about the state budget decreasing by some number. I would plead with them to write about how this would affect schools, roads, harbors etc....things we could shoot B-roll of, and interview people about (you know...getting a good central figure for the story)....but they just wanted to write it like a newspaper and throw around statistics and stuff.....but hey I was just the photog what did I know??