Photojournalism Technique - Research

Photojournalism Technique - Thoughts and Theory Behind Capturing Images of Conflict, Crisis and Disaster

I advocate an approach to photojournalism that is not at all accepted or popular. Your photojournalism professors may give you bad marks if you try to convince them of this and professional photojournalists may look down on you as an amateur if you try to argue this point with them. However, it is something I believe in and is one of the reasons I am able to get the shots that I do. I also believe this industry needs some drastic changes in thinking and approach, so here we go:

Don't over-research your subject matter before ever even getting out into the field!

I know this goes against everything that is taught about photojournalism and documentary photography, so let me explain a bit more. Photojournalism is about observing and also about telling the stories of those you observe, in their own "voices." If you are open to learning from your subjects—truly learning from them, not just placing your pre-conceived notions upon them—you will then be able to accurately tell their story to the rest of the world through photographs (I also think that this way of thinking would apply to all forms of journalism, not just photojournalism).

I can't begin to tell you how many times I have run into professional photojournalists in the field who start talking about what they are there to shoot. They have made up a big proposal to a publication, spent weeks researching it, called local fixers and told them exactly what they are looking for and asked them where they can find it. And yes, they usually come away with the story that they were there to get. But the question becomes, was that really the most important story to be told or was it just what the photographer thought was the most interesting story based on the reading they did before their project?

When you go into a story with tunnel vision, you close yourself off to so many things. You might not even see that there is a much more interesting story right there in front of you.  

Research happens when you are in the field, not when you are preparing to shoot your project! Your research should come from talking to people, listening to their stories, living life as they live it—not from an encyclopedia or website. You will learn things far more interesting from your experiences with your subjects than you ever could have learned during pre-production research. 

Going into a story without pre-conceived ideas and rigid plans allows you to document what the story actually is and not just what you interpret it to be.

This is another problem I have with mainstream, corporate media. They have "angles" and when they tell a photographer or journalist to get a story, that angle is the one they want no matter what—even if that really is not the true story. Reality suffers, truth suffers. And it is sad, because I think most journalists get into the field for the right reasons. Then after struggling to make ends meet, it becomes far to easy to just take that assignment that is offered to you, whether or not it is a good one. And editors are under pressure from the publications they work for, who are in turn under pressure from the advertisers who pay for their publications. When the top of the ladder in journalism ends in a dollar sign, we can't expect to ever get the full true story. 

The next time you head out to do a project, try doing your learning in the field and from your subjects; who better to tell the story than the people themselves? If you feel you need to learn about your subject matter ahead of the project, make sure you keep yourself open to the possibility that things may be different than you expected. Keep your mind open, be passionate about what you do and care about your subjects and always be willing to listen to all sides and hear all voices. You will find that you will be able to capture stories that no one else has. This is what journalism and storytelling is all about.

Comments

[Josh]

Absolutely! I second that. Thanks for elaborating on your approach. If more of us would approach our work in this way, I think we'd start to see a real shift in the quality of journalism.

[Kate]

I just commented with this on my blog, but I'll put it here, too.

I disagree entirely. This is perhaps because I’m coming at it from an academic background, but I think researching a situation, event or region is crucial. Sure, you can take good photographs without knowing anything about what’s going on, but I think if you have at least some understanding, your photographs will reflect that. You will misunderstand or altogether not notice many cultural, social or political elements appearing before your eyes if you don’t have the background knowledge. You’re also much more open to being misled by what people tell you on the ground.

One of the best examples of this is a story one of my lectureres told me. When he was in Sri Lanka, he and his wife noticed the owners of a shoe store kneeling on the floor and bowing towards a wall of shoes. His wife asked why they were doing that, and my lecturer jokingly responded that they were praying to the God of Shoes for good business. His wife believed him, because she didn’t know that the owners were actually Muslims and were praying in the direction of Mecca - the same direction that just happened to have a wall of shoes in its path. Misunderstandings like this - and in fact, guessing that the owners were praying to the God of Shoes is not at all a bad one - are easy to make, and without researching, obviously occur far more frequently.

Of course, I don’t advocate going into a story and solely shooting the angle you originally wanted to capture, but I don’t believe that researching the situation will inevitably mean that you aren’t telling the “true story”. In my opinion, the more you research, the better, and as long as you are open to learning as you go and developing your understanding on the ground, this is the best way to document anything, be it through photography, film, writing or otherwise.

[gacetillero]

As a journalist, I take your point - it's important to listen to people and not just rely on preconceptions. But for one, people are contextual, and research can help you understand their context better. Secondly, people aren't always reliable witnesses, and if you don't do your research, you may not be able to negotiate the pitfalls implicit in that. Given that it's harder to spin a photograph, perhaps that second issue is not so much of a problem in photojournalism - though it's probably still a risk.

[MIchel de Groot]

I think Zoriah did not mean that you should not research at all. And his line "Don't research (or at least don't over-research) your subject matter." may have been a bit badly chosen in context to what he is actually saying. I believe that Zoriah does research in a way that he knows which parties are involved in certain matters and how, where it is dangerous and where not, who to trust and who not. If only for his own safety. By researching these basics you will also learn quite a lot about the places you're going and the kind of people you will get across.

Proper researching can be very fruitful and I believe that knowing at forehand what particular story you want to focus on shooting isn't a reprehencible way of working at all. BUT ESSENTIAL IS - and that's what Zoriah is marking - that you must be able to let your idea go or change course whenever the actual situation tells you so. And get rid of any form of tunnelvision on a subject. His point that a photojournalist should not be led by a storyboard and preconceptions but primary by what he/she is actually seeing, hearing and experiencing in the field is one I totally agree on. It's about the 'soul' of independent (photo)journalism. With an emphasis on independent. I can't say I know Zoriah well since we've only met briefly but I know that's what he stands for, independent story telling.

Cheers mate!

[David Killingback]

"The best way to go into an unknown territory is to go in ignorant." - Dorothea Lange.

;o)

[Laurent]

(sorry, for my english, I’m from France.)

First, I’m not a photojournalist.

I am in tune to Zoriah’s point of view and disagree with Josh, with some nuances :

Zoriah’s work is based on a direct approach, an open mind that allows him to meet people and to confront and situations they bump into.

In this sense, it gives us a raw work and leaves the spectator (the thinker !) the opportunity to tell his own story. (see film maker Abbas Kiarostami’s film approach and its relationship with the spectator on the overall creativity of his work)
At the risk of his own life, he gives us pictures which are -for me- lessons of photojournalism. (1,913 journalists were killed in action : http://www.newseum.org/scripts/journalist/main.htm)

Regardless of the "gentle and academic theories" taught in schools or books "how to" to exercise a profession (at this stage, a passion), and obtain recognition of his peers (…)-and that sometimes we actually deliver a watered down which guides the spectator in a famous way of thinking while ignoring the reality that is less attractive to advertisers ...

From this point of view, the Zoriah’s work and approach is eminently respectable: primarily because it has been (as some of his colleagues) the choice of independence. And go on the ground that far exceeds the cocoon of a wedding (...)

I watch for several months with extreme attention and keep in mind (I’m a thinker too ;-)) the difficulties he met with the U.S. Army to have photographed and published on its website pictures of American soldiers killed in iraq ... (do a research!)

Let us not forget that the result of his involvement in the search for reality is sometimes pay a high price, but it remains in perfect integrity with itself, in my opinion, the first quality of a photo-journalist, before completing pre-commands too clean to satisfy advertisers -or worse propaganda-.

I do not imagine a second that Zoriah’s work job could be a tourist’s job. he knows exactly where he goes and under which circumstances he quit his flat to cover a story. For sure, he’s documenting himself on political, social and conflictins situations.

He does not say the opposite !

[Laurent]

Erratum : please read above (or, better, correct it)
"I am in tune to Zoriah’s point of view and disagree with Kate [...]
not
"I am in tune to Zoriah’s point of view and disagree with Josh [...]
with my appologizes.

[Jun]

I like the approach that Zoriah is taking in his initiative of photojournalism. I believe everyone has his/her own way to doing things that make him/her comfortable. But most importantly I believe at the end of the day, the right story goes out. I also like the approach where Zoriah mentioned about passion. Somehow with his method, the intense feeling and of course passion seem to be immensely deep when he approaches his clients. And that somehow makes every hardship goes away as at the end of the day, the work that is produced somehow makes it all worthwhile. And his approach actually makes the work far more interesting and I respect that. Probably not the ideal way but very much good enough. No one method is ever totally ideal.

[Zoriah]

Thanks everyone, I appreciate this discourse and thought i would pop in quickly :) I think that the important thing to remind people after this post is that my goal is to document the HUMAN side of conflict, crisis and disaster. I emphasize this, and especially the word human, because it is my primary concern to document how human beings lives are affected by political decisions, environment etc etc. I think different photojournalists have different goals with their work, and someone's goal is to make a political point, or historical point, I would hope that they have done their research, in many different forms.

The goal of my work is purely to show how lives are affected. Actually, I really hope that my work inspires the general public to do their own research. I want people to learn about the things that I document, I want them to know more about the world we live in, about the lives of our brothers and sisters across the globe.

Kate: I very much appreciate your points, but please remember that I am not advocating taking photos without knowing what is going on. I am merely stating that I think it is better to do your learning in the field than buried in books. Once again, please understand that this relates to my approach to photojournalism and may not to everyone else's...although I do believe there is something to be learned from this approach for all documentary reporting.

As far as the story about your lecturer and his wife, I think that all of us would hope that if his wife had any desire to become a photojournalist that she would spend a bit more time traveling first ;) Obviously the point that it would be easy to be misled or misunderstand a subject you have not researched is taken, but I believe the approach of learning in the field, especially from multiple sources and not just one person or one situation, can also prevent such misunderstandings. Had this woman asked another Muslim family she would have quickly found out that not everyone was praying to their shoes :))) When I do my learning in the field, I am doing it from many, many people and not just taking the first thing I see and hear as a 100% truth.

Michel: It was such a pleasure to meet you in Brussels. For those of you who do not know Michel, he is a great guy and is producing some really wonderful work...so please keep an eye on his site.

You are right in that my "don't research (or at least don't over-research) your subject matter" comment is badly chosen...at least in itself :) My goal was to get peoples attention with that comment and then explain further, but I believe you are right and since that sentence stands alone, it should be re-written, which I have just done :) Cheers mate!

[Kate]

Zoriah: Thanks for responding. Your comment makes your point of view much clearer. I do agree with you when you say "I am merely stating that I think it is better to do your learning in the field than buried in books", but I really do believe that a lot of value comes out of researching the situation and people's lives beforehand, as well.

When you say "Had this woman asked another Muslim family she would have quickly found out that not everyone was praying to their shoes", what about if she didn't speak the local language and the local didn't speak English? Or didn't speak enough English to fully explain what was going on? There's the potential for some serious misunderstandings in a situation like this.

I do hope you know I'm not criticising you here! I love your work and I think you take a lot of amazing photos. However, I'm also of the opinion that there's no such thing as "over-researching", but again that's the academic in me talking ;) I think we both agree that you have to be open to changing directions and opinions as you experience the situation, though. It's been nice following this discussion.

[Marc-André Pauzé]

I agree with Zoriah about not over reserching and discovering on site. I remember Pep Bonet (NOOR) saying about the same in an interview on Kodak site.

I think it depend on the time you are ready to spend on a subject. If time count, research and preparation is important to make your reporting. But if you have a basic understanding of issues and get somewhere, explore, take your time, get to know your way around (people and area), listen, feel and jump on opportunities, your going into the great adventure of exploring and understanding, wich are critical. LISTENING before taking your camera out.

Coming from an adventure background (mountaineering, travel and world wandering) as well as a medical background (more rational approach), last year, I went on an canadian indian reserve. I stayed there for many weeks, getting to know the people, and came back with a story on women breaking the silence law around violence. I did my research after to complement the story and was a finalist on the Independant journalism Award in Quebec.

We have to take our time.

[Penelope Gan]

Yes I tend to agree ... on the "OVER" research bit; with 'over' being the operative word here.

And Z, it's evident in your diverse and rich body of work that is DIFFERENT since it is seen with fresh pairs of eyes and unclouded visions or perceived 'right' and 'wrong'. Keep them coming.

[Zoriah]

Kate: Ha :) I take no offense at all...you are very kind, dont worry about such things. I am happy to have people question and explain my theories and thoughts!

I have worked in over sixty countries and have never spoken any of the languages or used a translator (yes we had them in the In Harms Way show, but they were hired by the production crew.) Anyway, I have never had problems finding things out, even if I have to take my laptop down the people I am staying with or the desk at the hotel and say "hey, are these people really praying to those shoes??"

I heard a great radio documentary a while ago on NPR or BBC, about Iraqi interpreters working with the US military in Iraq. There was this whole section about how they always had to change what each side was saying or else all hell would break loose, as neither side really knew how to deal with the other. So, I guess there are probably a lot of lessons in such stories, one of which may be that even interpreters may have angles or reasons for spinning their translations. A very complicated subject to tackle.

Marc-Andre: I could not agree more! Yes, I suppose research would be quite important for staff and assignment shooter who only have one or two days to complete a story. That world is so far away from mine I did not even consider it! Most of my projects are at least three weeks, although I completed these Afghan refugees project in one full week. Either way, it is a lot of time with my subjects and quite from from the in and out approach.

I am going to post an email I received (with permission from the sender of course.) I think that some important points are made and I am happy to balance what I have said in my post with well thought out comments such as this one :)

Hello Zoriah -

I would like to start by saying that I have tremendous respect for the work you are producing and the original method you are using to get it done. In many ways you have to exceed the standards of traditional media in order to further your independent enterprise. So, all credit where credit is due.

But in defense of good journalism, I don't think your treatment of research in your last post is entirely fair, despite the caveats you offer. I do not agree that research should be avoided or neglected in preparing for a story. In fact I think it is one of the most critical things a journalist can do in making sure they understand the context of the stories they will encounter in the field.

As you have seen people who enter a situation with too many preconceptions, I have seen people who have no clue what they're witnessing or asking about, which causes them to miss the real story entirely. I also don't equate preparation and pitches with a ladder that ends at a dollar sign.

In reality, I would rephrase your thesis to say, research the bejeezus out of a story, get to know the history and issues, become an expert in the armchair. Then, in the field, prepare to throw all of that effort and information out of the window when you are faced with the reality of the story, become a kindergardener in a global classroom.

And if a you aren't capable that practice of learning and forgetting and learning again, you aren't capable of doing good journalism, and you should find another job. You might be a fine photographer, but you shouldn't include journalist in your job title.

Of course, I don't mean YOU, Zoriah. I think you are eminently capable of this process, which is why I follow your work. I think you have organically internalized this process that you aren't conscious of how much you know going into a new story. But when offering advice to emerging photojournalists, I think that telling them to research less could have unintended consequences if followed to the letter.

Regards,
DR

[Kate]

I think DR's got it exactly right - they just phrased it better than I did ;)

[Jeroen Berkenbosch]

Very good point. I study journalism and see it happen among my fellow students, although most don't research anything :P
Anyway, I think a combination of both would be best.

For example, the situation in Darfur. You can go there without any knowledge and find out everything right there, but it would probably be easier to learn the facts (when did it start, how much people are in refugee camps, why did it start, who are the opposing factions, etc) before you head to Africa.

While you're there, keep an open mind and add the conversations/facts from locals to your already gained knowledge of the situation.

I think that would be my approach, although I've never did such a big story (neither with text or photographs).

[ShadowExplorer]

I fully agree with you Zoriah. I believe this so much, myself, that I have even chosen to not go to school at all and be completely independent in my approach to photography and photojournalism. Yes, I may be going up the rough side of the mountain, but I see it as the only way.

If you are to over research and fill your left brain with facts, it will hamper your right brain from getting the true feeling of the subject matter and your work will become mechanical and soulless - just like our Left Brains are.

[Olivier]

Greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge...

Keeping that in mind, there is nothing wrong with extensive research as a tool to ask pertinent questions during interviews, but not to provided preconceived answers.

Anything that starts with "It is a well know fact" is a signal of assumption that should probably be challenged.

So what is "Over research" then?
The point when you should kick yourself in the booty, go out and shoot!!

Barely kidding...

Abrcs,

O.