Interesting article. But take note, they keep using examples of how "digital journalists" work great in ridiculous places. Like Kosovo, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Cambodia, and Congo. And in the middle of warzones.
"Massive" ABC cuts coming...
- Thread starter AKinDC
- Start date
Interesting article. But take note, they keep using examples of how "digital journalists" work great in ridiculous places. Like Kosovo, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Cambodia, and Congo. And in the middle of warzones.
Hiding Under Here
Well-known member
Again, the word "network" is really misleading. Just because someone is working for a national news outlet, that doesn't make them necessarily a fully competent television photographer. There's a lot to learn, a lot to know to do this stuff the right way. And you have to learn it from someone with experience because, if you don't, you will make your mistakes on the air. And that will really diminish you.
If someone cannot tell the difference between an optimal equipment package -- one that will add to your ability to do the best job -- and a sub-optimal package, then they simply don't have the skill or experience to evaluate whether a live shot is done well or not.
Local crews get by without optimal gear all the time. Network crews do poor live shots with optimal gear all the time. But a competent local crew with sub-optimal gear will not make a better looking live shot than a competent network crew with optimal gear. Ain't gonna happen. There's no magic solutions out there, no making light do something for you that I can't make it do for me. So just because one crew screws up a live shot while having many toys at their disposal doesn't make it a waste to actually have those toys because toys turn into tools in hands that know how to use them. Learning how to use them is a key to those who want to be better, more skilled, more knowledgeable practitioners of the craft of television photography.
If someone cannot tell the difference between an optimal equipment package -- one that will add to your ability to do the best job -- and a sub-optimal package, then they simply don't have the skill or experience to evaluate whether a live shot is done well or not.
Local crews get by without optimal gear all the time. Network crews do poor live shots with optimal gear all the time. But a competent local crew with sub-optimal gear will not make a better looking live shot than a competent network crew with optimal gear. Ain't gonna happen. There's no magic solutions out there, no making light do something for you that I can't make it do for me. So just because one crew screws up a live shot while having many toys at their disposal doesn't make it a waste to actually have those toys because toys turn into tools in hands that know how to use them. Learning how to use them is a key to those who want to be better, more skilled, more knowledgeable practitioners of the craft of television photography.
Last edited:
Nino Giannotti
Well-known member
Right, we on this board don't understand, and you of course do.
You just have no clue do you?
Yours is a bunch of amateur nonsense; something to tell a cheap customer when the alleged "professional photographer" doesn’t have the right equipment and most likely wouldn’t know what to do with it anyway.
We don’t take equipment out of our vans just to impress clients and surely we don't invest in expensive equipment just for fun; everything we use has a purpose. If you can’t understand it than is back to school for you.
I’ve done hundreds of outdoor stand-ups and I can’t recall a single time that did not required additional equipment to make the subject look as good as possible; and this is the goal, to make the shot look as good as possible in spite of the conditions.
Try doing these shots under the Florida sunshine without the right equipment.
Chicago Dog
Well-known member
Necktie Boy
Well-known member
As other has said, the right equipment and accessories will always enhance you work.
I was watching a local station interview two people on camera, but also used the reporter's question, off camera and off mic. The lavs that where used were mismatched, and the reporter's questions could barely be heard. If that was a "network" crew or someone with the right equipment could have used a mixer to feed all three people's sound into the camera, instead of using the lav's that were clipped a few feet away to pick up the reporter.
Even when I worked at a few television stations and my last job, sometimes I would bring some of my "toys" to make my work easier and better. Some may think it's wrong, but I always felt that I had to do my best. It's my work being shown.
I was watching a local station interview two people on camera, but also used the reporter's question, off camera and off mic. The lavs that where used were mismatched, and the reporter's questions could barely be heard. If that was a "network" crew or someone with the right equipment could have used a mixer to feed all three people's sound into the camera, instead of using the lav's that were clipped a few feet away to pick up the reporter.
Even when I worked at a few television stations and my last job, sometimes I would bring some of my "toys" to make my work easier and better. Some may think it's wrong, but I always felt that I had to do my best. It's my work being shown.
Hiding Under Here
Well-known member
When it's your job to shoot top level live shots, then you do what you must to make them look excellent. When you churn out live shots as a matter of course, day in and out and then move on to other things -- as many local photographers do -- there isn't the same emphasis placed on quality. Big set ups like the ones Nino has posted take time to put up and tear down. A local crew could never do that because they lack both the gear and the time. So I don't think anyone is saying that if you don't do live shots at this optimal level you are somehow professionally deficient.
What the argument coming from the national level guys is is that regardless of how many lazy network crews there are in the world (how do you keep your interest level up when you are doing day after day of live shots?) you can't consistently make great looking live shots without applying a certain amount of knowledge and tools to the situation. You may lack the tools, but the knowledge of how to make things better through improvisation is still readily available. A silk -- for softening the sun on the face -- is relatively cheap to acquire. Reflectors -- even if they are the foil side of home insulation -- are relatively cheap to acquire, though less reliable than an expensive HMI. Knowledge and skills, are relatively cheap to acquire. Ideas for how to improve, how to grow professionally, cost nothing.
Complacency, free though it may be, will cost you dearly in the end.
What the argument coming from the national level guys is is that regardless of how many lazy network crews there are in the world (how do you keep your interest level up when you are doing day after day of live shots?) you can't consistently make great looking live shots without applying a certain amount of knowledge and tools to the situation. You may lack the tools, but the knowledge of how to make things better through improvisation is still readily available. A silk -- for softening the sun on the face -- is relatively cheap to acquire. Reflectors -- even if they are the foil side of home insulation -- are relatively cheap to acquire, though less reliable than an expensive HMI. Knowledge and skills, are relatively cheap to acquire. Ideas for how to improve, how to grow professionally, cost nothing.
Complacency, free though it may be, will cost you dearly in the end.
code20photog
Well-known member
Typical night shot for me,
I count, 1... 2... 3 lights, and this was a breaker, and in HD. It can be done with 1 person. Might have to break a sweat, but it can be done.
Hiding Under Here
Well-known member
What relevance does HD have to do with the difficulty factor?
code20photog
Well-known member
It doesn't, but if you're going to shoot in HD, it better look good.
Point is, this is a one man, 3 light, HD live shot. It can be done, and it can look good, with limited number of people.
code20photog
Well-known member
And my wife just got her layoff notice. The "massive" ABC cuts doesn't come close to 755 teachers released on one fail swoop at her district.
And that's nothing compared to LAUSD where 5,200 layoff notices just went out.
And that's nothing compared to LAUSD where 5,200 layoff notices just went out.