Ed Kashi's 'Flip Book' Multimedia Technique

Great story.

Good idea for the presentation, I had played around with flicking through images quickly, but not that quickly!

As Ed says, it could get annoying if it becomes the norm, but as part of a multimedia presentation I could see it being effective if not over used!

It would mean some photographers changing their shooting style though; the only way I could shoot/buffer at that rate would be to shoot JPG rather than RAW, so images would have to be shot with this type of presentation in mind.

That was incredible! Thanks for sharing it!!

Personally, I was underwhelmed. It was like watching bad video, stuttery, hiccupy, and really what is the big deal here? They discovered that by placing similar images side by side and running them in video you get motion, like a flip book. Gee. Also, it allows one to see all of Kashi’s shots, so the really good ones get diminished, like looking at the day’s take before the final edit is made. And the transmission over my DSL connection was bad too: the film kept getting interrupted as it loaded, which interrupts the sequence, destroys the narrative flow, and then basically ruins the viewing experience. I am glad to see them experimenting, I am all for it, but I dont understand why everyone gets all excited, stands up and cheers, etc, when, if one coldly and calmly examines the results there is just so much that is not particularly good. I though Kashi’s own assessment was closest to the truth.

it’s my understanding that mediastorm will today post a hopefully better version of the presentation. the MSNBC ‘player’ is really inadequate….so far, no cigar.

Jon, throw a few names in there, National Geographic etc, claim to have invented a new form, auction it on Ebay and call PDN and you get something….its called “hype.”

As you say, its almost comical as Hollywood has already shot films on DSLRs and here we have someone claiming a new technique. Ok, great. Give him an Oscar.

Maybe photographers should just concentrate on making important photographs (no slight on your own multimedia work Jon, I thought the theme was compelling and helpful in understanding my own project here in New Orleans) rather than getting caught up in the wheels of technology. No?

At Lightstalkers were are democratic…..anyone can self-promote, from Aleph to Bruno Stevens, Andy Levin included of course.

jon: i agree – why not just shoot video? i can’t see what is so interesting about this. i mean, didn’t we invent animation generations ago? i think that ed’s work on aging in american was presented in a far more powerful and compelling fashion. this work just seems like bad images strung together for kicks!

I have yet to view the entire presentation as my connection is wobbly at the moment, but I was intrigued by this quote-

“MediaStorm licensed the web rights to the presentation through an online auction, which MSNBC won”

Ebay? Or is there some online auction site for news photography I don’t know about? I wonder what they paid for such a production? A lot of man hours need to be compensated for it seems.

no ebay….it seems mediastorm auctioned out the project.

see this:

http://mediastorm.org/blog/?p=42

I second Jon’s and partly Andy’s comments. I really like the idea of mulitmedia presentations, but this one was like “how video can I be with my DSLR?” The result was that a few good photos were packed together with too many mediocre ones in an almostvideo – and thus diminishing the impact of the meaningful single photograph. I think, this technique can be used once in a while in a photo presentation, but only as a transition or an intro (like the way video is used in some of MiM’s pieces).

very disapointing considering some earlier Mediastorm presentations. Ed Kashi is a photographer and I can’t remember a single image after watching this ‘video’. somehow not fitting in regards to the subject, somehow missing something, somehow not interesting at all…
take a look at this , the same technique (all made from still pictures) but more interesting (has nothing to do with PJ though)

Very informative – like being given access to someone’s contact sheets: I learned a great deal about how Kashi shoots but came away not much wiser about the Kurds.
I wonder if this fad for Flash and sound presentations will last: very seductive at first but, as the novelty wears off and everyone seems to be doing it, I start to feel that we are beginning to see a lots of cases of content being spread very thin. At one point I felt I absolutely had to learn Flash and fast: now I beginning to think that the real challenge is to concentrate on the photos…

well i enjoyed the sync with the music alot, but i do agree there are some great photos that are lost in the mix. i think the flip-book technique can be used in conjunction with stills to create movement and dynamism which is exciting, but if it over-done it loses all meaning. this is a tool for presentation nothing more. this is nothing new to me, i had a friend who was doing this 2 years ago: http://proofsheet.com/motion/ (the miser).

I saw this at The Eddie last month. Everyone loved it so much they copied it for the team final presentations. I guess imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

Bill.

its interesting, but its re-inventing the wheel- they did this in the late 1800s- its called a “movie.” just shoot video. agree, I learned almost nothing about the Kurds.
Ed Kashi has done some amazing work, and this is an interesting new take and technique, but where is it going to go ?

Maybe the most important lesson here is trying to auction off multimedia pieces….

Couldn’t make it past about the fourth minute before I was worn out. I think it’s a case of technique obscuring content.

Edit:In light of the intelligent points put forward by Ed and others subsequent to my first look at the piece I went back and
watched the piece again a couple of times.

I’ll admit that there are some aspects I found entertaining this time around(particularly the play between music and images) but I’ll stick to my guns
to the extent that I still find the technique overpowers the images.

I understand the need to move forward and reach a new market with new approaches and,undoubtedly,the exposure on MSNBC will help achieve this goal.

I went to Eds site and viewed his Iraq Kurds group of images (many of which appear in the multimedia piece) and was left with a much stronger reaction
to the images presented in this fashion. Perhap,I’m just too ‘old school’ !

The presentatn style doesn’t seem all that new to me. From the early 1990s I remember a group of photographers here in Germany doing slide shows under the name ‘art of vision’. They would use 12 or even more projectors which allowed them to create movie-like sequences, perfectly synchronized to the sound track. That someone is doing the same thing now with Flash or Quicktime isn’t really an innovation IMHO.

Carsten

Hmm. I kinda liked it. And there was a similar-style slide show at the end of EA 8, eons ago. Something old, something new…

Yeah, it’s herky-jerky. The flip-book idea’s been done. It could have been edited in half, and then edited in half again. The music saves it. It reminds me of that other Media Storm piece on Cuba, the music video. But I will say this though, as the rest of us scratch our heads and discuss whether multimedia projects are worth doing and then wonder how to do it, Kashi has produce multiple projects and apparently sold them all. He’s ahead of the curve to say the least.

From a technological and potential sales point of view, the future is staring us in the face. I didn’t particularly enjoy this project, but experimentation is happening, techniques are being refined, and the market is watching. As the lines between content for TV/Cable and the web blur, this will be a great way for the rest of us still people to get some of the big broadcast paychecks to say nothing about self-promotion potential. Most importantly, the more these things are made, and distributed all over the place, the more people will see the stories they should. We do what we do to tell stories, this is a great way to show them. I applaud Ed Kashi for his work, yet in the same breath I ask…no more flip books.

Hello, This is Robert Hood. I’m MSNBC.com’s Director of Multimedia. I’m responsible for purchasing this project from MediaStorm so, I think it might be a good time for me to weigh in on why I bought it and what I think it does for photojournalism.

For transparency sake I should say that Brian Storm and I go back a long way. We went to grad school together, and argued about the shape of buttons for CD-ROM projects more than 12 years ago. He is the person who hired me at MSNBC.com, and the day he left to pursue other interests was very painful. Having said all that, I admire what Brian is trying to do with MediaStorm. I’m not personally excited about every project he does, but he is thinking critically about what is next WITHOUT abandoning what is great about still photojournalism.

The editorial back story for MSNBC.com’s Iraqi Kurdistan project began about a month ago. One of our writers was working on a story about how Iraqi Kurdistan is attempting to attract western investment. My team was asked to contribute something to that editorial theme. We looked into all of our traditional sources and came across a set of pictures that Ed Kashi shot there about 18 months ago. The pictures were about daily life in Iraqi Kurdistan, and they illustrated the conditions pretty well. We wished the pictures were a little newer, but they seemed like they were still editorially valid. So, we bought enough pictures for a tradidional MSNBC.com slideshow. That could have been the end of this discussion. The story / slideshow would have gotten mid-level cover promotion for a couple hours and poof it would be gone.

However, just as we’re wrapping up production on our slideshow, we got email from MediaStorm about an Ed Kashi Iraqi Kurdistan project. I looked at he right away and noticed that it was the same set of pictures. Wow, what’s the chance of that? So, I called Brian and he explained this whole auction idea (that’s a topic for another thread). I told Brian that I was interested in the presentation, but that it felt more like art than journalism. He laughed the way Brian often does and said that he understood my criticism.

That day I went back and watched the piece MANY times. I showed it to several people in our office. The reaction was quite positive. My head began to drift toward making a bid for the project.

I went home that night and there just happened to be a few children at my house. My kids had a couple friends over. (Hang with me for a moment as I explore a sidebar… part of our mission as journalists is to figure out how to connect to young news consumers. How do we get the next generation to pay attention to the world around them? Jon Stewart can’t carry all of that load?) So, I pulled each kid aside and had them watch the project. I told each one to look away, walk away as soon as they became bored or uninterested in what they were seeing. Every one of them watched the entire project.

Here are a couple quotes… “I don’t want to look away, because I might miss the best pictures.”, 13-year-old girl. “Why are we fighting in Iraq?”, 9-year-old boy.

After watching how these kids responded and remembering how many people at work really liked it, I decided to make a bid the next day. However, I had a few negioation points. I needed Brian’s blessing for me to go in an ad contextural information at the bottom of some scenes. Some people liked it. Some people didn’t. I believe it helped the story telling.

So, lets get down to the business side of this. I came in with a bid that I thought was a fair and strong opening bid. I was prepared to go higher, but I had an upper limit that I couldn’t go beyond. I was a little torn. Most of me wanted to win the bid, because I believed in the product. However, a small part of me hoped that some other organization would sweep in and pay even more. Either way I do well. Either I win or my friend does very well on a cool project. MSNBC.com was very excited when we won the bid.

I encoded the file and about seven times our normal quality. It’s really meant to be played at the full monitor size on a broadband connection. That is a huge part of MSNBC.com’s audience, so I felt comfortable going there. I can’t share specific numbers, but I can tell you that MSNBC.com made our money back in two days off of ad plays at the beginning of the piece. So, would I do a project exactly like this again. No. Would I be open to new things, experimental things, HELL YES!

I hope this helps the discussion.

- Robert Hood

Robert,

Not bad for a mixed review of trying something new, really. I thought it was interesting. If 9 out of 10 things are a success, you’re not taking enough chances. I’ll leave you with a quote from Wim Wenders:

“With the exception of “Hammett” I controlled all my films and produced
or co-produced them all. So I can only blame myself for all mistakes, be
proud of some of my flops and suspicious of some of my successes."

Folks…I was just informed about this thread and many of the comments are useful but in general the point of this “flipbook” idea is being missed here. It’s not claiming to be something new. It’s really just a celebration of the still image and finding a new way, with the new tools and mediums we have right now, to utilize photography to reach broader audiences, play with images, movement and sound, and try something different (at least for myself), with creating narratives. There is a terrible small mindedness in this profession. There can be a very petty approach to how we view each others’ works. The “I could have done that”, or “I’ve done that before” mentality is not productive. I haven’t claimed to discover something new. I"m just excited about where things are at and trying to explore the potential of where things can go. And I want to be in control of that destiny, in as much as possible. So I appreciate the critiques, much of which I agree with, and fiercely defend still photography at a time where the work I’ve dedicated my life to for over 25 years feels very threatened. But why should we not try something new, at least for ourselves, get it out there for the public to view, and see where it goes.

Keep open hearts, open minds, don’t stop using your imaginations and appreciate what your colleagues do. The fact that a story I am passionate about and have covered over a 16 year span is getting another public viewing by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, is only a good thing for the Kurds, for my work and for our profession.

As for Brian’s attempts to auction the project, I was a bit hesitant because I knew there would be some negative reactions out there by people who are threatened by new ways of doing things or are concerned/afraid of the changes raining down upon us, but I applaud Brian for trying new things. I know nodody more dedicated to keeping photojournalism, visual storytelling and the craft of still photography alive today then Brian Storm. You may not agree with his aesthetic choices, etc, but he is out there fighting an important and good fight for all photographers who want to be storytellers.

So everyone calm down. Wait for the version that will be published by MediaStorm later this month and enjoy the show. I am already contemplating how to improve and mess with this approach. And it’s all in the name of honoring my subjects, honoring still photography and paying attention to the changes that are barreling down the highway towards us.

Best to all….Ed Kashi

Ed,

we really have to separate the ‘is it new’ question from ‘does it work’. My first reaction when the presentation started on my screen was ‘I have seen the technique before’ (see my comment above). However, after watching it two or three times I was left with an impression of ‘relative normalcy’ (for lack of better words) of Kurdish life. So far, whenever I saw someting about the Kurds in the media (at least over here in Germany) it was a report on something extreme (gas attacks by the Saddam Hussein regime, terrorism, the PKA etc.). The flipbook technique made that impression more intense than the usual gallery-style presentation would have. Of course this will only work until it becomes mainstream (if it does).

Anyway, even though the flipbook technique may be somewhat controversial (or should I say because of it being controversial) you have probably reached far more people than a standard gallery could have reached (I’m sure Robert knows the numbers). This discussion alone shows that the experiment raised a bit of interest.

I also found Robert’s comment on kids watching it interesting. Kids today grow up with different viewing habits than our generation did, mainly influenced by TV and movies, so maybe an approach to adapt the presentation of still pictures to those habits could be successful in the long run.

Carsten

Carsten,

I am up very early due to jetlag and I normally don’t take part in these kinds of disucussions, but I feel something very important is being discussed here. I want to address the “does it work” issue. My question to you would be, does it work for people outside of photography? I am so tired with photographers who try to only impress people in the field. There are so many great stories to be told and the object is to tell them and get it out to the public. Is this high art? I’ll let others be the judge of that. Does it show you glimpses into the daily life and some of the issues of the Kurds in Iraq? I feel it most certainly does. Is it an interesting use of current tools mixed with old style technique? Yes. Can it reach a younger audience. I certainly hope so. Do I struggle with my own children’s overuse of new technologies and does this feed into the same battle I"m already waging? Possibly.

Ed

I’ve probably had way way too many beers tonight to talk logically about this subject. I said earlier in this topic that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.
But Ed and Carsten bring something up that’s might be another topic altogether: introducing people outside photography to stories (Ed) and the possible dilution of the work/art through the flipbook method (Carsten).
The same type of debates probably raged within the community when various new technologies were introduced (8×10 to 4×5 to 35mm to digital yadda yadda yadda). What Ed said is correct: the point is to get the stuff out.
I liked the flip book method. Would I try it myself? Probably not. I don’t have enough patience to do that. But I’m all for others doing it. It can get old and look a little cliched at times though, but at least the work gets out and catches your eye.
It worked in Ed’s case. Will it work for others? That’s for us — the audience — to decide.

Ed,

did stuff done 10 years ago (what Ritchin was doing with Peress) work for people outside of photography ? I’m rather sure it did.

Did it do it in a format that, with all due respect to what you guys have been doing, is something a bit more evolved than a slideshow with ethno music ? Yes it did.

My issue with your presentation is not that i’m threatened by a “new way of doing things”. It’s that it’s still an inherently fascist format (the slideshow) coupled with post-colonialism (ethno drums, cmon), willingly targeting the lowest common denominator and presenting itself as an innovation. In short, it’s not a “new way of doing things”, it’s a way of doing things the old way in a new medium. As others have pointed out, beyond the sales part, it doesn’t even qualify as an experiment.

Do i have a better answer as to how to show work in an era of screens and broadband connections ? nope, and i’m aware i’m absolutely incapable of coming up with such answers.

Now, is there a place where i can view the work at my pace and without the ethno music and visual gimmickry ?

Matthias,

why are you so angry? I am not a fascist nor is this project fascist in any form. You sound very bitter. This is a celebration of the images of daily life of the Kurdish people in this particular place, an appreciation of wonderful music, and an attempt to mix the two in a union that hopefully communicates, makes you feel something, etc. If you don’t like it then that is fine. There is a lot of mediocre work that gets celebrated out there. That is the nature of the creative process when mixed with commerce and marketing. I loved what Ritchin and Peress did with his work from Bosnia in the 90’s. This is something different. Remember, if you don’t like it, then don’t watch. The version mediastorm will put up will work much smoother and larger I believe. As for viewing the work at your pace without the “ethno music and gimmickry”, then it wouldn’t be this particular piece of work…would it? By the way, I’ve paid for the rights to this music, so I am also, in this small way, helping to support the musicians who created it. Isn’t that Ok in your book? Again…chill out and think more about what you can do to be creative and if you don’t like something don’t watch it or recommend it to others.

Ed,

I liked it and thought it was worthwhile to do at least once, though I’d hate to see it turn to fad. I think though you’re taking the criticism a bit too personally—this is “watercooler talk” about a project that took a chance. Kissinger is credited with saying that politics in academia are so vicious because the stakes are so low… Same goes here. I don’t think it’s necessary to tell people to chill out and calm down when they’re equally passionate about photography. It’s worthwhile that different voices with their different styles of expression discuss new things. Even if this got mixed reviews, that’s not the case with your other work anyway. It’s far better than being ignored, isn’t it?

“In November, 1918, as the tide seemed to be turning- the most sheltered simpleton suddenly discovered his sympathy for the working people, and for several months mass-produced red and reddish allegories and pamphlets did well in the art market. Soon afterward, however, quiet and order returned; would you believe it, our artists returned with the greatest possible silence to the higher regions: ‘What do you mean? We remained revolutionary – but the workers, don’t even mention them. They are all bourgeois. In this country one cannot make a revolution.’ And so they brood again in their studios over ‘really’ revolutionary problems of form, color, and style."

……….dada is dead!!!!!!!!

Hey guys, I’ve read all your comments and watched the full presentation and I have to say I loved it! Now let me qualify that before y’all get het up. I also don’t have speakers at the moment so I watched it without any sound. I thought it was really luscious to see just the fractional spaces between the frames. To me it was like seeing someones proof sheets and really seeing what the ‘taken’ photo really means in the sequence with which they progress.

That said I have to agree its not a ‘New’ technique. I defy anyone to produce something new now-a-days. I did this sort of thing years ago by shooting animated sequences of stills on Super 8 at art school way back in the 80’s. (of course I did it really badly, but you get the point) and at one of the studios I worked in we set up arrays of stills cameras to sequentially photograph one event, which was then animated. The technology at the time wasn’t all that great but hey it was worth the effort.

However it is the means of distribution which is new and a new techno savy audience that Ed and Co. are trying to reach. Doesn’t everyone remember the pixellated ‘Sledge Hammer’ video. Everyone fell about saying how great it was at the time and well I haven’t seen this approach taken with photojournalism before, so why the hell bag it? If it drags in kids, (who seriously all make their own videos on camera phones now my nephews aren’t interested in my big hulking cameras but give them my phone and off they go) then its definitely worth pursuing this for a bit of time at least.

Like all things this certainly has a place. A single still image in a gallery or a book can be a meditative experience, but this on an internet site has a very different appeal and kids do love things that move quickly.

My only critism and I am fairly certain this is just a matter of refinement, is that like any doco there are bits that seem to have an uneven pace. As I didn’t hear the audio maybe it would have appeared smoother with sound I don’t know. But I thought as I saw it, especially the sequence about the kurdish leaders (and I am sure everyone has shot those conferences where everyone just sits there) it was an excellent way to turn something that is inexcreably boring normally into something much more lively and involving.

As to not remembering single images, what about the hang-glider, the shot of the guys climbing into the 4 windows, the female landmine victim (shot with the arms of the nurse in the foreground-great shot howdja get that?)

And I hope the auction made Ed a lot of dollars. So well done on that score as well An innovative way of flogging a project. So c’mon guys don’t be stick in the muds, it is the 21st century now.

I am still trying to work out how to do a holographic version of a long term project I am working on. Something like the ‘Holodeck’ on Star Trek. (Any takers for funding, Robert?)

Robert. Thanks for your input on how you came about licensing the piece. It’s very heartening to know that Documentary Photography is still not only relevant, but profitable. I applaud your further commitment to “experimental things”.

Ed. I enjoyed the work. As a photographer, it was especially intriguing to witness how you were able to utilize what would normally be considered the chaff to the “keepers”. It’s not every day that we are offered some insight into ones shooting process to see how those keepers are attained. It was like viewing a hyperactive, yet well paced contact sheet.

Lisa. The audio is in fact an integral part of the edit. It defines the rhythm that might otherwise seem awkward without.

I thought so Jethro. Bloody hell I gotta get some new bits and pieces and speakers are top of the list! Still without sound I could really concentrate on the imagery and I did really love it anyway. Great stuff.

Ed and Robert, thanks for chiming in, and I strongly agree with much of what you said vis a vis the need for experimentation, the willingness to take risks and maybe not always hit your target, and so on, — and in particular, Ed, as you said, the need to work for a public that is much larger, more varied and more open than our small clique of photographers. I second that last point wholeheartedly, and I have said so a few times on this forum. I shoot for people outside the profession, not for other photographers. When I was in Academe I saw how eventually the scholars and critics closed themselves off from their public and ended up speaking in closed rooms to one another in meaningless jargon. That is a real dead end.

Sorry if my comments, or the thread as a whole, sounded a bit vituperative. I certainly didnt intend that and anyone can tell you that I go out of my way to help people on LS. While experimentation is good, you are bound to get reactions of all sorts, some of them negative, and I think you have to bear one thing in mind, which may account for the acid in some of the comments, unfair as it may be: When such a production is presented to the public with a full court press — MSNBC, Mediastorm, writeup in PDN and the like - then one’s inevitable reaction is that the product being pushed is cutting edge stuff, the best there is, the hurdle set higher than ever, which of course is not always true. But excessive attention will be focused on it simply because of all the hype; moreover, the opportunities for marketing our work are so few that inevitably some people will feel left out, overlooked etc and that breeds a sour-grapes mentality that unfortunately prevails when the pie is small and there are so many mouths to feed. I agree that the photo world can be rather stuffy, one’s colleagues unhelpful or stingy in their support. LS is here to counteract that and despite occasional spats we arent doing too badly. Anyway, while I was underwhelmed by the project, and the hype made me react negatively, I definitely applaud the spirit of experimentation behind it all. I have argued for an approach to multimedia that takes film technique more into account, and I produced a little experiment of my own - without a production team — that sought to put some of those ideas into practice. A long way from perfect, but definitely heading in the right direction. I am trying to see if we can get more people involved in these things and experiment with the editing possibilities afforded by new software. No reason why slideshows need be so uninventive; and no reason why they cannot be produced by ordinary individuals with imagination on a shoestring budget.

Lisa,
If you perfect a holodeck project then PLEASE give me a call.
I’d wan’t to get ahold of it before Storm does. :-)

Love it or hate it, this project has generated a healthy discussion here.
And more important… MANY, MANY, MANY general news consumers have viewed a project about and read two good stories about Iraqi Kurdistan. I see this has a success. Let’s move on. Let’s go tell more stories. Let’s think about ways of engaging the reader/user/viewer/viewuser. I’m not sure what we call the audience any more. Maybe audience is the perfect word.

Best wishes to all,
- Robert Hood

Ha! I dont know if anyone has noticed, but it appears that an LS member, Patryk Rebisz, is trying to get Ed and Robert¡s attention for his very similar project. Check the Alerts.

yes, the project generated a healthy exchange of views on a creative photo project…and that’s the purpose of LS.

personally, i don’t think the viewer on MSNBC’s website does the project any justice, but Ed Kashi tells us that it will be better shown on the Mediastorm website next month…so we’ll see. notwithstanding, the project gives us something to think about…and pushes us to innovate, reinvent, reheat ideas to tell stories.

Ed,

just so we’re totally clear on this, i didn’t intend to call you, or anyone else, fascist (nor do i think i did).

I do feel like the slideshow, as a format for use in an environment where the viewer can control the experience is extremely authoritarian in nature, especially when there is no way to control the flow of images as is the case with the presentation on the MSNBC website. There is no technical justification for this (beyond the possible need for Microsoft to use their own technologies rather than flash, for example) that i can think of, only a conceptual one, which i feel is absolutely indefensible in this day and age.

Wether or not you (or anyone else, for that matter) paid rights for the music that goes with the presentation is beside the point, since doing so seems to me like a rather normal thing, and it doesn’t change the issue with using ethno music, much in the same way that i’d think of using country music or bluegrass as an audio background to a daily life in new york story. This also applies to said use in other settings (perpignan being one, majoli’s new york marathon another). I think that we can both agree that just because the lowest common denominator for the viewership assumes that kurds should be watched on an tom-tom background doesn’t mean that conforting such an assumption is a good idea.

I’m not going to “chill out”, because i, like you, care deeply about the issues that this thread deals with. To me, the reliance on the slideshow and the whole hype surrounding Storm’s concepts feel very overblown in regards to the actual achievements of the presentation format (and not of the work used in making the presentation). I am voicing that concern, and i see no need to hold back at voicing it. It feels like PJ is once again slipping years behind the conceptual curve, which bothers me even more when said slip is surrounded by a certain degree of sycophanthy. To me, what MediaStorm is doing at this point is a reactionnary, conceptual abomination which needs to be called out for the bluff it is rather than being supported under the guise of appeasing the FUD in the field. My position is that Ritchin and Peress were much closer to a medium-specific form of storytelling than what is being produced nowdays, no doubt for a number of reasons which are beyond my understanding and other people’s control.

This worries me to no ends, albeit less than my own inability to come up with a valid answer to the problem at hand. I hope someone will, soon.

In the meantime, please don’t ask me to believe what a startup’s marketing team is dreaming up, and please consider the option of not making those who could actually be working on a solution feel comfortable with reheating trite concepts.

Once again, please accept my apologies if i offended you.

So, I have a question about the piece, that has nothing to do with the images or aethetics or anything else we’ve beaten into the ground so far. What was invovled with the auction? My first thought was auctioning stories, whether just multimedia projects or anything else, was a great idea. After thinking about it for a while though it seemed to me there were a few problems. One, if our stories are auctioned (like art pieces really) the big names and contest winners will rule the day on sales, as they do now (for the most part). Second, if we as photographers can’t set our own prices for our work (like having prices set for us during an auction) where will that leave us? There are other things, but I wanted to make this short. Did I miss the point in auctioning?

Also, for those so inclined, have a safe and happy Thanksgiving.

I think creativity is something to keep alive in projects – personal, or otherwise. I found Kashi’s piece inspiring in many ways. I did have the pleasure of seeing this on a big screen and it was a totally different experience. Although it did not move me in the way that his other work had in the past, i found it to be creatively inspiring and an experiment with new media that is continually important in our field. I found this piece to be a successful representation of the daily life of the Kurds, which is something that many people will never get to see. It does something that a still image may not be able to achieve, but has a totally different and mesmerizing feel than video.

Cheers

As far as the “does it work for the general pubic” goes, speaking for myself I am not working for the general public, and I am not working for other photographers. What I do is for myself and if I don’t like it, its not going out there. If people are responsive, great. If photographers applaud, it makes me feel good. But I am not comfortable with the idea of creating a “product” that is going to appeal to the lowest common denominator, an attitude that has left us with People Magazine, USA Today, and if sorry to say, the current state of National Geographic itself. If we don’t take ourselves seriously, than no one will. I think that Matthias is speaking to this point, and its what LS is all about. The beauty of LS is that one is open to new people and influences in a very democratic way, and I would suggest that there is much to gain by participating.

With that in mind I think that Ed can be a valuable addition to our group and I hope he continues to participate, I am sure he has much knowledge and experience to share.

Morgan, that is a point worth following up.

Matthias, whereas normally I would find myself agreeing with you on such issues, on this particular point (slideshows/multimedia as inherently authoritarian because they do not cede control to the viewer), if I understand you correctly, I cannot. And I have been thinking alot about this lately. Your allusion to the Peress/Ritchie effort is a very good point of comparison. That kind of work, which basically allowed a viewer to construct a narrative for him or herself by following along whatever path they chose, was an extremely interesting experiment, and I am surprised it hasnt generated more work of its kind. It is certainly medium-specific, as you point out, and it seems capable of further elaborations. The fact that such elaborations havent appeared is probably something worth investigating.

But I have to say that I dont agree that simply because someone presents a slideshow in accordance with his or her particular narrative form and themes already carved out that such a narrative is inherently authoritarian — or if it be so, that its nature as such is necessarily a bad thing and that a narrative constructed along more participatory lines is inherently superior. Nor do I agree that what Mediastorm does is necessarily reactionary. we are storytellers essentially, and that means that in order to tell our stories well we need to be true to a personal theme, viewpoint, bias, whatever you want to call it. What Peress did was provide elements for others to build a narrative — but in a way this was a ruse, because in fact the building blocks were already determinant, they dictated only a small variation in the storytelling (one could choose to view this image after that one, but the images were still all about the same thing and the photos had their own inimitable and unalterable style). This basic issue came up when I presented my multimedia “film” and one LS member argued that it was flawed because it failed to reproduce the “voice” of the people depicted in the pix, that by providing a voiceover narration instead of oral history, I was excluding them and imposing an “extrinsic” interpretation of my own. It seemed like a valid argument until you examine the assumptions behind it, and then you realize that it is based on flimsy logic. (I wont go into it all here, but you can see the argument HERE).

This example is different from Kashi’s, but we are not talking apples and oranges here really: we are talking about one basic idea, the idea of power relations as they obtain among the three subjects of any given discourse — the “author”; the “reader” or “viewer”; and those who are represented within the discourse, that is, those people who form the subject matter of the “text.” I personally find that most of the poststructuralist theory that would have us revise our narrative practices in order to avoid falling into adverse power relations, thereby creating “reactionary” representations, simply doesnt hold up to scrutiny, because in the end you cannot escape the fact that a narrative always has an author, and the author’s point of view is what makes the narrative compelling; therefore, rather than eschewing control, control is what guarantees narrative validity and authentic meaning — though you may not like that meaning. But then, that is what public discourse is all about isnt it? I present my ideas, and you can either take them or leave them, engage with them, correct them, show me the errors of my thinking or ignore them. The utopian wish that a collective kind of storymaking, a la ancient epic (which was composed of stories formed by a community, handed down by one generation to another, and never the property of a single author), strikes me as quite reactionary and Quixotic because it harks back to a past model that cannot be transplanted from its historical context. It’s a fantasy of Hegelian Marxists (Georg Lukacs’ Theory of the Novel being at the root of this conceptual tradition) that I just dont buy any longer, though I admit when I was a grad student I was very very hep on the theme. It also occurs to me, just on the spur of the moment, that one could argue the opposite, that a narrative discourse based on individual control and personal vision is inherently less reactionary than a participatory model because it exists for the purpose of stressing and celebrating difference, of presenting one’s viewpoint not as an absolute or complete truth, but just one person’s piece of it, which necessarily depends on others to complete the picture, as it were. The onus is then placed on the Reader-Subject to be receptive to other narratives and recognize the value of their differences. Whereas a participatory model, which assumes somehow that it evinces the issue of control and authority because it aims at a generalised authorship, is in fact reactionary because it seeks to annul individuality, reduce difference to homogeneous conformity in the name of consensus, and rather than create a healthy multicultural, multiperspectival and multifarious narrative, succeeds only in creating PC art by committee. You see, how can we talk about communal authorship in an age when “gemeinschaft” has been thoroughly supplanted by “gesellschaft”? We dont have communities, really, in that age old sense; we have committees. And is it really a good idea in this day and age to celebrate the group over the individual, when any sort of grouping almost inevitably takes on the very fascist, totalitarian qualities that you would have us avoid? Notions of Volk, Race, or any other kind of identity politics, even if intended for the empowerment of a minority, such as Gay-Lesbians, African-Americans or any other such group, seem to me inherently reactionary and potentially dangerous. Anyway, just a thought.

And I would say finally that Morgan is onto the real crux of the matter: the market. Therein lies your real issues of control and egalitarian dissemination and consumption, etc. Therein lies the real fight. Marxism took a wrong turn when it decided to abandon its very trenchant analysis of the capitalist market in favor of the politics of representation. Aside from giving a bunch of academics lifelong tenure at various universities it hasnt really changed a single thing in terms of social or economic equality.

Pardon me if I misunderstood your comments. I am sure you know that I appreciate your voicing them, particularly as many people within the Anglo-American tradition are not aware of them and certainly are ignorant of their philosophical antecedents, so it is good to have you bring them to everyone’s attention.

I create work for the public because I care about reaching people. I care about the world. I care about the impact of my work. However I am not creating work aimed at the lowest common denominator. I am dismayed if you see that in my work. I risk a lot to produce the stories I work on. I ask for nothing more than to make a living, get the work out and make a difference. I know, at this point in my career, that my work can make a difference, however small. I’ve jettisoned my bitterness and cynicism. Photography remains a powerful form of communication on many levels. That is what’s so wonderful about it. The editorial world has seen better days, and the media in general has swung in a fiscally and politically conservative direction over the past decade, which has particularly hurt our profession. Yet I remain optimistic and driven to create, utilize whatever tools are available and work with the best people. I have learned that if you create powerful, important work, good things will come of it. Whether that work is commissioned by NG, People or myself. We must always remember that this is a marathon, not a sprint, so however I can get my work funded, that’s what’s important.

I am glad to participate in these forums, but I’m only interested in the exchange of valuable information, ideas and less about personal opinions.

Thanks Jon, Salud.

It’s a really simple equation: slideshows (or ‘multimedia’ in general) can make mediocre images entertaining (at best), or make great images mediocre.

In the former case, you’re still left with mediocre images; In the later, you’re frustrated by a gimmick.

In both cases, it’s a disservice ‘to photography’, if that’s what’s important.

Thou Shalt Not Suffer The Ed Kashi to LIIIVE! Burn the witch!! BUURRRN HIIIM!!!!

Calm down pilgrims – he hasn’t remade ‘Triumph Of The Will’ or anything.

“It’s been done before?” Photography has barely changed in 150 years, 35mm camera design hasn’t altered much in 70 years and some people still think that somehow, good ol’ steam-powered monochrome is still a ‘truth telling’ tool, which may have been valid before Kodachrome was first introduced about 50 years ago, but now…?

If slideshows are Fascist, then black and white isn’t even giving you the option to see the original view as seen by the photographer…Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Tri-X, eh?

But photography, whether in colour or B/W, is all ‘visual gimmickry’isn’t it? As is painting, video, TV, film and even slideshows for that matter. They’re all just substitutes for ‘being there’.

The flickbook style has been used many times. A Rolling Stones music video was produced by UK photographer Andy Earl about 15 years ago, using stills shot on transparencies, which cost an absolute fortune…and Tim Burton’s multi-million dollar ‘Corpse Bride’ feature was all shot with Canon 1Ds Mk2’s.

But that’s missing the point. They could be set up and staged, and were produced within the ‘entertainment’ sphere.

Ed Kashi’s slideshow wasn’t. It was on-the-fly images about daily life in Kurdistan.

Not bang-bang, not epic gorgeous Nat. Geo. type stuff…just ordinary people getting along. This was stuff that ‘Life’ magazine used to run across multiple pages (e.g. Eugene Smith’s Spanish Village), but do you honestly think any mag is likely to do that today?

So getting that subject matter out in ANY media now, is a great result for a start and TONS of people are gonna see it – and he got paid for it too.

Sweeeeet…what’s not to like?

What’s revolutionary is not the technique, but that (with others) it’s beginning to explore possibilities for documentary photojournalism in the online space. That space dwarfs the printed medium by an order of magnitude, but lots of photojournalists seem to think it’s some kind of fad, adjunct, an even a dead end.

Nope…we’re the dead end, and photojournalism as a genre of photography WILL largely go the way of the pet rock (we have about 2-5 years, tops) unless we start thinking about and exploring this stuff.

As for the slideshow targeting the ‘lowest common denominator’ (or ‘the general pubic’ as Andy Levin neatly put it, heheh)…photojournalism right now has a big problem, which is self-inflicted, has corroded it’s ethos from within (IMO) and helped drive it into a narrowing niche.

This problem is that many photojournalists seem quite happy to hold the audience in contempt.

Every time we dismiss our audience as celebrity obsessed sheep, or ignorant uncultured proles who just don’t ‘get’ the self-obsessed, pseudo-art photography ‘photojournalism’ which is often passed around our little self-congratulatory sewing circle, we’re turning our backs on the very people I assumed we existed to reach.

The brutal truth is that to a large extent, the mass audience that once used to react to photojournalism on a regular basis, now doesn’t – not because they’re dumb, but because they simply no longer give a fuck about us.

You know it, I know it, but getting us to admit that is like pulling teeth, AND to admit that it’s not the audiences fault, because they don’t owe us a damn thing, and never did.

It always was, and still is, OUR job to engage with THEM. Not the other way around.

But we’d rather dismiss them and murmur approvingly at each others work instead, in a sphere where any decent photojournalism funding increasingly resembles some kind of pyramid scheme – I bursary you, you competition me, I grant you, you judging panel me, I gallery you, you festival me…and round and round we go.

Hello? Where’s the fuckin’ audience in this hall of mirrors? They’re sitting on the tube or the bus, or in their office, or in their homes waiting for us, but we won’t engage them with scorn, or by disappearing up our own arses.

Times changed. The game moved on. The spectators moved on. We dropped the ball, and went back into the changing room in a sulk.

Any photographer who gets back on the field to engage TODAY with those spectators – by any means necessary – is to be applauded.

I wanna see Ed Kashi’s slideshow on a 42-inch HD telly, speakers on 11, with a beer and the God-given snack of my choice, and if that makes me the ‘lowest common denominator’, then I’m afraid I’m just gonna have to loosen my belt another notch, get comfy on the couch and burp in yer face…

Before I watch it again. On an iPod. Or my mobile phone. For free I might add…instead of shelling out 65 quid for some photo-book that gives me a hernia to lift and is treated like some holy artifact.

Would people rather I watched Fox News instead?

We either start coming out sluggin’ on the screen, or we’re all pretty much dead meat by the end of this decade, I reckon.

Oh Sion your opening sentence gave me the biggest laugh I have had in days! Points to you on this. I agree entirely, if we do not embrace change as a profession well to quote my favourite movie of all time…

“At the end of the decade there’s gonna be a lot of refugees…”

Everything Sion said + 2.

Ed, the real strength of the piece is its human element. It effectively conveys so much humanity and so much culture. We need more of that in news instead of all these superficially and shortly translated soundbytes of foreigners that often do more to dehumanize or disenfranchise them instead of truly giving them the voice or the representation they deserve.

The piece’s emphasis on visual communication manages to transcend linguistic barriers.

To me it represents an important move towards making journalism more universally and globally accessible. I cannot wait to see the MediaStorm edit.

Attempts like these should be better welcomed in the photojournalism community to make it better..

…instead, it seems like any approach that is new, different, or atypical is predictably and consistently ridiculed.

While healthy and constructive criticism is certainly necessary and essential in our medium, mindless personal character attacks that are jealously motivated just make us all look bad.

Your work is amazing, keep it up.

Patrick Yen

Um, I’d still love to explore the auctioning thing. What does that mean? How does this work? What is the best means of distribution for these type projects? How can photographers produce top notch work AND profit from these things?

I realize this might be impossible at this point, but can we steer the conversation toward something useful; maybe even business oriented? I fear that we’ve run off one well respected and extremely valuable voice behind a camera, as well as an editor that tried to reach out to us. No wonder editors don’t share much here.

Anyway, if Ed and Robert are still around or anyone else knows this information I’d love to try and talk about it.

Just a heads up – Ed has addressed his experiences with this flipbook in his blog. If anyone is interested in reading further, go here:

http://www.edkashi.com/blog/

Interesting thread:

I commend Robert Hood and MSNBC for purchasing the MediaStorm piece. I think the flipbook is very innovative in thought I am sure the next one they do will be even better and more innovative in it’s use. Developing new ways to tell stories is the future of journalism. More and more folks are going online for their information. By using audio and other multimedia techniques photographers can expand their storytelling.

internet auction:

It would be interesting to know what MSNBC payed for the flipbook or would pay for multimedia content. I do know we are all storytellers, but we are also business people. Sometimes a dollar value can help give folks a push to learning how to learn a new skill.

I think the auction is a very interesting way to sell content. I only wish to know who else was part of the auction. As that the auction was closed it would be interesting to know what media outlets are interested in freelance multimedia — that is . . . already produced/ready-made content.

Does multimedia photojournalism pay more than still images by themselves without a multimedia element?

If a photog produces their own audio slide show and go beyond shooting only the stills will they be compensated for this type of work?

innovation:

Experimental content gets huge play on the web — just look at this thread! It’s called viral marketing.

-seth

seth m. gitner
http://multimedia.roanoke.com

and if you want to see an innovative daily local news webcast that we do here check out:

http://timescast.roanoke.com

Seth, I have no experience with MSNBC but I can tell you that Time Magazine is looking for strong multi-media work that deals with current issues that might be of interest to their readership. Mark Rykoff is one of the editors involved in Multimedia at Time. From what I have heard the going rate is around $1000, but I would imagine that if you have something exclusive the rates could go much higher. Some of the pieces have been featured in threads here on Lightstalkers. Search under multimedia.

If you have a piece that you think might be of interest to them, I would be glad to look at it, and tell you what I think, and perhaps refer it to Mark.

I can’t go into specifics here, but I can tell you that MSNBC.com understands that good multimedia reporting is every bit as difficult and probably even more difficult than great still photojournalism. There is also the additional cost of the photojournalist having to purchase an audio recorder/software. There is also the very significant jump in cost if you want to get into video.

So, MSNBC.com has a day rate for…
Still photography
Still photography and audio
Still photography, andio and video

I get that it’s more difficult. It involves more time. It involves purchasing, carrying and learning to use more gear. We’re willing to pay for that.

But let’s revisit what it means for story telling. How many times have you shot HUNDREDS of pictures for a story, and at the end of the process you get anywhere from 2 to 9 pictures in a newspaper or magazine. Text often rules the day. It’s very frustrating. So, how do we as story tellers begin to address this. I’d never tell a still photojournalist to abandon his/her still camera(s) for video. However, I’d certainly suggest that they pick up an audio recorder/microphone and some shound editing software for their computer.

Begin small, do simple things. Provide the flavor of the subject’s voice or the natural sound of the bird you’re doing a story on, and by the way, show LOTS of your pictures while the finished audio narative rolls by. (that REALLY the point)

Lets talk about worst case scenerio for a moment. Worst case scenerio means that you never misquote anybody or misspell a name ever again, because you recorded their voice.

Best cast scenerio is that you open up your marketing potential. You’ve got print, online, radio (if the audio is done well) and even television. We’ve had a project that was purchased and published on MSNBC.com also run on MSNBC Cable. AND MSNBC Cable paid for the second publication.

So, think of this as a brand new day. It’s about oppertunities to tell more immersive stories. It’s also about getting paid.

Listen to the environment next time you’re on assignment and WONDER what it would mean if you could bring that sound to your audience.

- Robert Hood

Had a bopeep, The “Flip Book” style is too much like finding mechanic in the yellow pages flipping through all 600 pages. Storytelling is about focus and engaging the audience not flinging them all over the place. I am sure that with some sequencial restucturing it can all work for now…. a miss

Story telling is how ever we want to tell it. I never understood the idea of belief that it was something rigid. If it was rigid we’d still be reading sonnets or plays the way Skakspeare wrote them.

I saw this on the Baltimore Sun site. Well, it was done by David Hobby who runs the blog Strobist.blogspot.com – sort of a similar idea, but not.

enjoy http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/weather/bal-fall-flash,0,5806381.flash?coll=bal-home-outerrail

-m

Robert- Thanks for sharing. I wasn’t looking for numbers or figures, just some understanding of how this new market works right now.

Getting into the multimedia end of things can seem like a wonderful way of wasting lots of money on equipment and time in front of the computer learning new and complicated programs that change every few months. But in the end, the concept is utopian really; the ability to produce a good story through still images, to hear the subjects tale from their own lips, to hear the background noise, music, movement, etc. Then there is the potential for mutliple sales (through multiple avenues), sounds great.

As a freelance though, production for new media is a huge mountain to climb and another set of things to worry about. It does seem worth it, the idea, but time well tell. I’m learning as fast as I can with the resources at my disposal. I digress, but thanks again. It’s been helpful.

Hey Robert, its nice to know that someone out there is interested in new forms. The minute I can get holographic reporting happening I’ll let you know! (Er, don’t hold your breath just yet, the tech side, while kinda simple is still in its infancy. Gee, we can map the human genome but some of us still don’t know how to tie our shoelaces properly -if you know what I mean!) But hey thanks for the very sanguine nature of your advice and ideas, I’ll certainly be taking them on board.

Ed Kashi wrote: “I create work for the public because I care about reaching people. I care about the world. I care about the impact of my work. However I am not creating work aimed at the lowest common denominator. I am dismayed if you see that in my work. I risk a lot to produce the stories I work on. I ask for nothing more than to make a living, get the work out and make a difference. I know, at this point in my career, that my work can make a difference, however small. I’ve jettisoned my bitterness and cynicism. Photography remains a powerful form of communication on many levels. That is what’s so wonderful about it. The editorial world has seen better days, and the media in general has swung in a fiscally and politically conservative direction over the past decade, which has particularly hurt our profession. Yet I remain optimistic and driven to create, utilize whatever tools are available and work with the best people. I have learned that if you create powerful, important work, good things will come of it.”

Everyone should re-read that paragraph three times. Thanks Ed.

I have started a new thread HERE regarding certain themes that were brought up here but are perhaps better discussed on a thread of their own.

Just to clarify, as Ed has completely missunderstood my comment, this is what I wrote:

“As far as the “does it work for the general pubic” goes, speaking for myself I am not working for the general public, and I am not working for other photographers. What I do is for myself and if I don’t like it, its not going out there. If people are responsive, great. If photographers applaud, it makes me feel good. But I am not comfortable with the idea of creating a “product” that is going to appeal to the lowest common denominator, an attitude that has left us with People Magazine, USA Today, and sorry to say, the current state of National Geographic itself.”

Nowhere did I say that Ed’s work, or the flip-book, appealed to the lowest common denominator.