Photography has been part of presidential history, at least since the Lincoln administration and it has always been noisy and somewhat disturbing or distracting. Flash powder was noisy, smokey and somewhat dangerous. Flash lamps “popped” and were known to explode and shatter and their flash durations were longer and their output was stronger and more “blinding” than today's speedlights. Newsreel (film) cameras required strong lights and had noisy motors. Earlier ENG cameras also needed “hot” lights. 4x5 press camera had there own clatter, the insertion and removal of film holder in their spring loaded backs or the similar sounds of multi-sheet magazines. Each era had its own noise level

There was a quieter era of Leica, Rolleiflex, and a raft of rangefinder medium format cameras with virtually noiseless shutters and manual film advance mechanisms.

Then came the SLR with their mirror slap and motor drives and much of this noise is still prevalent in the digital era.

Of course, news photography and photojournalism is not exclusive to presidential news conferences- the media is abundantly present at every televised event- award shows, sports of every description, political affairs and anyplace where celebrities, VIPs, high profile business leaders and politicians appear. Presidential new conferences are comparatively well controlled, many of theses other events are not only cover by accredited news agencies but by the Paparazzi who are not known for there sense of decorum.

The DSLR is going to dominate the photojournalism scene for the foreseeable future and will not be entirely replaced by mirror-less cameras any time soon for a number of practical reasons. It has to do with a bit of history, equipment usages and the present environment under which photojournalists work.

Back in the day of press and medium format cameras, most of theses cameras had fixed lenses in normal or slightly wider that normal focal lengths. 4X5 press cameras were usually fitted with 127mm to 35mm lenses, the 2 ¼ square variety went from 75mm to 80mm, ideal format press cameras averaged a 90mm lens and 35mm (range finder) users usually went with 35mm (wide angle) to 50mm and perhaps with a medium telephoto in the 105mm to 135mm range.

Thing was, back in the days before the long list of current assassination and assassination attempts, terrorism and widespread gun violence , security at many events was not quite as stringent. Accredited press photographers where allowed closer access to VIPs. I covered a number of events, press credentials around my neck, where I was photographing (we don't say “shooting) only a few feet away from the President of the United states, The Prime Ministers of Canada and Israel, Queen Elizabeth and the Pope. If anything, wide angle lenses were required for work in tight places, shooting over crowds. Nowadays, one would be lost with out a compliment of telephoto and zoom lenses. Photographers are oftentimes corralled in a press area quite a distance from podiums, stages and areas within the security net. Even with auto-focus, precise monitoring of the image in the viewfinder is necessary for critical focus points, exposure readings and composition. Sometimes extreme telephone lenses are needed and all of this is in the domain of the DSLR. You can “shoot form the hip” with a long lens in low light. Rangefinders just don't cut it! Viewing on the the LCD screen at the back of a mirror-less camera or even a DSLR, held away for the eye, especially in brightly lighted areas is completely impractical.

For most sports coverage, the need for long lenses is self evident.

Again, back in the day, even a major event would entertain a good number of press photographers but nowadays there are hundreds from accredited press, local, national and foreign publications, wire services, stringers, freelance shooters and the Paparazzi. Even if everyone was comparatively quite, which the are not, the cumulative effect of hundreds of photographers mirror-slapping, changing lenses, gunning and running, talking, walking and breathing is gonna be NOISY!

In the past, the shooting concept was anticipating, the action, grabbing the shot at the decisive moment, getting out of there fast enough to make the deadline. The film went to the darkroom, the prints went to the editors and the composing room, plates were burned, then to the press room. Theses days, it is quite possible that the images may be on the press before the photographer gets back to his or her car. Nobody shoots one or two “film holders” or a couple of rolls of film. They shoot 7 FPS and make hundreds of exposures. The are not only expected to get shots for current news but to add to a mass of “file photos”. Y'all know those OP-ED articles with pictures of politicians looking disproportionately happy, sad, nasty, guilty, soft and fuzzy- whatever, to match the gist of the editorial?

When you get 30 to 100 folks flashing, shooting, clicking and chattering, with photographer and reporters beckoning for shots and shouting questions, you get lots of CLATTER. And don't forget all the regular folks dashing about with cameras and smartphones, adding to the chaos. You gotta live with it, it's part of a FREE PRESS and our democratic society and all the great images that record and illustrate our history.

On a personal note- with some of the stuff the politicians are saying lately, I would rather listen to the CLATTER!

Hello David!

You misconstrued my statement about mirrorless cameras. Not only am I up on my reading but I spent a bit of time at my dealer's store considering the purchase of the latest Olympus model and got to try the demo unit for a couple of days. NICE CAMERA! Of course, some of the models have a viewfinder, however, it is an electronic image as opposed to the optical image that many photographer, including myself, are used to. I have been talking to many of the working press photographer, here in Ottawa- it's the National Capital of Canada so there is quite a well populated press corps- many of the shooters express a bit of reticence about the accuracy of the electronic image in the viewfinder. Also- I don't know if there are any lenses in the 300mm to 600mm range that are available for theses cameras.

I have nothing against mirrorless cameras- my point is that the many photojournalists will not make the transition into theses camera anytime soon - just an observation on my part. If they do, it will probably be in favor of the lighter weight and smaller size as opposed to the noise factor.

Hey- everyone is entitled to their opinion and I certainly don't mind a good debate. The only issue I have with many folks here on the Hog, is they assume other folks don't read, do their research and if the think someone is misinformed, rather than explain their point of view and take the time to reach out and INFORM, the, write, "GOOGLE IT or "read up"!

Best regards, Ed

I am disappointed but no surprised.

For folks that are supposed to be photographic enthusiasts, I can understand why so many of you think so badly of the photographic press corps. Are we all not VISUAL people- do we not want to see IMAGES of our news and history

Do some of you really believe that photojournalists and news photographers purposely create noise at news conferences and other events and the are a bunch of inconsiderate boors who are out to cause a disturbance and become obtrusive. Saying that they “don't care...” is a mean-spirited and uninformed statement.

I know many news photographers and photojournalists, they are hard working, consciousness, professionals that oftentimes have to operate under stressful and high pressure conditions. The have families and children to support- just like many of y'all and earn there living through their photography. They spend many days away form home and keep difficult hours. The need to deal with security issues, work among high profile and oftentimes high strung people, sometimes they witness and photograph the the most unfortunate and tragic aspects of life and manage to practice there craft at the same time. The have to possess and develop good people skills in order to navigate through all of this, garner cooperation and access and still maintain their sanity.

I worked on a Montreal daily newspaper for three years and then decide to go back to the commercial world. I worked with members of the press corps in Vietnam- it ain't a job for the faint of heart- theses folks EARN their money. Sometimes they are the targets or victims of those who want to “ shoot the messenger, a dodgy position to be in when you are the messenger!

The high profile celebrities and politicians become very familiar with the clatter- believe me, it's pat of their daily life and mostly them expect the onslaught of press and all the accompanying noise - many thrive on it- it comes with the territory.

Next time you watch a presidential news conference, a red carpet event or see a “scrum” of photographers clamoring for a shot outside courthouse or police station, or in the halls of government and hear the clatter of cameras, rather that becoming annoyed, why not consider it the sound of YOUR FREE PRESS at work visually reporting breaking-news and recording history.

In some countries, not only is the clatter restricted but so is the true freedom of the press.