MultimediaShooter - keeping track, so you don’t have to…

Richard,

Once again, thanks for generating the impetus for dialogue in an age where, agreeable, it is possible to get lost in the land of technical rhetoric. I’m also quite saddened by the ethical debates flooding so many of the blogs and boards. What I find myself yearning for is these types of discussions to happening in person, face to face. When so much of what we do takes place in the virtual world, I wish we could dole out some of the issues with storytelling as a group. Nevertheless, here’s my two cents about the stories you’ve presented me:

I’m slowly warming up to the execution of narration in multimedia. For radio, it’s a given, and something I came to accept long ago. Transferring the concept over to multimedia still doesn’t quite feel ‘right’, especially when I get to see the person doing the narration, and that person — in this case David Alan Harvey — is the photographer. For lack of a better term, it’s a little too much subjectivity. Hmmm … That’s not quite right either.

Okay, I just want to hear more from the subjects he chose to cover. I really want to hear them. I want to hear their views expressed, not a distilled interpretation of words, thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc … A happy medium, or balance needs to be achieved when taking this approach. Now, as a journalist I’m simply curious to know why the decisions was made to go heavy on the narrative, and film Mr. Harvey sitting in front of his prints and tearsheets. That part was a little unnerving, and removes me as the viewer from the story. My experience with National Geographic has primarily been through the magazine in print. And, I think that Mr. Harvey’s story of hip-hop glossed over so many of the issues. I don’t get the feeling that it’s a lifestyle. David LaChapelle was far more successful in his documentary, “Rize”, which covered an emerging style of dance, called “Krumping”.

The same can be said for “Sights & Sounds of The Global Fisheries Crisis.” I readily acknowledge that these multimedia presentations are probably meant to be primers, or perhaps a stepping-off point for a viewer to learn more about these subjects. Yet, I’m still left feeling empty, and that’s not because of the subject matter. Give me some substance! I want to be shown something I don’t know — something that eclipses the knowledge base of the average person. Stir my emotions!

Turning to the Magnum treatment … and by the way, you chose two organizations that are on opposite extremes of the visual spectrum, in terms of imagery … I’m going to become very critical at this point. Both “Blood, Nail, and Tears”, and “Terre Rouge” suffer from a lack of good editing. I barely made it through the former, and closed out the latter half way through — for many reasons. The first is the photography. I wasn’t impressed at all by the style of photojournalism that both of the journalists employ. With all due respect to both men and the mere accomplishment of becoming Magnum photographers, they’re frames just aren’t all that compelling, and it’s not a matter of being visually sophisticated.

In order to partially eliminate an potential aesthetical difference of print vs. screen, I paused the shows at random frames, in order to allow my eye to linger with the pictures. My feelings didn’t change. And so it goes, if the viewer doesn’t care for the pictures, they’re not going to stay for the show. As a matter of discussion for journalists, I remained tuned into “Blood, Nail and Tears”, but didn’t come away all that moved. However, I did learn a few things about the Philipino culture. So, to some extent it was a success. Again, much like all of the shows you’ve presented, it too suffers from a lack of good editing. There’s too much visual repetition, and not enough dynamic imagery to keep me locked into the story.

Moving to the discussion of storytelling technique, there’s something very satisfying about ambient sound. With NPR being the master of this, hands down, it’s once again important to note the importance of EDITING. In John Vink’s piece, “Terre Rouge”, I could handle at best thirty seconds of banging and crowd noise, before I muted the audio. Again, this is a totally subjective issue and discussion — albeit a very important one: What works, when, and why? It comes down to a matter of circumstances.

I’m finishing up a piece on the failed home-opener between the Cleveland Indians and Seattle Mariners that won’t left me feeling satisfied. Why? I missed something, and it was because of a technical issue that I perceived to exist. I was afraid that the microphone I was carrying wouldn’t be able to accurately capture the sound of the groundskeepers’ leaf-blowers being used to melt the accumulating snow. Why not at least try? The issue is a personal one, and I think my show might suffer for a lack of not trying.

And so, I admire whomever did the sound capture on “Terre Rouge”. However, I don’t think it works. It serves as too much of an audio distraction from the importance of the story. In this particular case, it might have been interesting to hear a translator from an interview with a Cambodian in the process of being evicted. Yes, we understand the anger, grief, and frustration eminating from the mouths of those people, language barrier or not, the anger is palpable and universally understandable. Since I’m allowed to empathize, and am emotionally somewhat moved, I now want to hear one of the victims of eviction speak from a remote location. I want to hear that interview spliced in with the ambient.

In closing, I applaud all the individuals for their hard work, sacrifice, and faithful documentation of all the issues presented. This is important work, and there’s certainly no absolutes in this form of storytelling. We’re just as much explorers as we are journalists, and technophiles. All of the things we think about, discuss, and perhaps obsess over are important to use for one reason or another. Much like Richard, I too feel that there needs to be more balance to the things we get stuck on — such as what works, and what doesn’t work. Thanks. I look forward to a response, and continual dialogue, because there’s a lot I probably missed, and there’s a lot to learn!

Be Well,

Andrew

Andrew,

Great comments on the slideshows. While I am a big fan of David Alan Harvey’s photography and I appreciate other photogs’ work presented in these slideshows, I think that working with audio and creating slideshows is an art in itself and it takes time, effort and hard work to develop compelling pieces. None of these slideshows struck me as particularly good for pretty much the reasons Andrew listed above. Cudos for your honest critique.

On the positive note, new technologies mean that all of us that are not members of Magnum or National Geographic shooters have a chance and tools to create multimedia work that can successfully compete with the work of photogs that are at the top of this profession and have access to resources most of us can only dream of.