Editors want photographs and so do the public. Images do not always elaborate on the text or angle of the story and sometimes they may tell a story that is completely different to what has been written. Problems with images include the irrelevancy to the article as well as the publishing of unethical images. How many times have you selected an article purely because the image is eye catching? How many times have you made an assumption based on that image and read the story, only to find yourself confused or disappointed with the connection between the two? How many times have you seen a confliction between the two?
-Alex McKinnon's Injury-
This is a "good" example of photography in journalism.
The image is eye catching. It captures the anxiety, drama and intensity of the moment and it is confronting enough to generate interest from the audience and the position of both McKinnon's body and the medic's body are in line with the rule of thirds. Newspapers such as the Sydney Morning Herald used this photograph after the initial report of the player fracturing his neck. With many people standing around and the medic cradling McKinnon's neck whilst the player lies flat on the turf, there is quite obviously an injury concern, which is corroborated directly in the article content.
-La Nina: Floods in Australia-
This is a "bad" example of photography in journalism.
This photograph does not follow the rule of thirds, nor does it convey an emotional appeal. Although the water is high around the man and car, the water behind him is shallow. The article, from news.com.au, is about the devastating La Nina weather Australia had faced. The man, the focal point of the photo, is portrayed through his appearance like he is having fun - only wearing board shorts, a big smile and a double thumbs up- not someone who is in a particularly dire and dangerous situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment