LCD

I was watching January 6 Congressional hearings the other day as they heard the moving testimony of an ordinary election worker who was traumatized by being falsely accused of manipulating the votes for president in 2020. The camera briefly cut to the scrum of a dozen photographers and four video cameras trained on her. I had to ask, was this overkill? Doesn't the situation beg for a press-photographer pull so they aren't shoulder to shoulder, staring down the witness with their big lenses?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

The way I look at it, these are working photographers getting paid to cover a hearing. Each one must have press credentials to get admitted to the House. Good for them and the more the better.

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

Congress allows as many as they want there.
I would think so.

MSW

i don't fault the photographers for the dumpster fire of American politics ... their bosses, on the other hand ...

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

While it may seem overkill, pro photographers do get paid. You do your job, get paid, perhaps catch a few unique photos and meet a colleague or two. As for the subject, this is the way of the beasts. You could surmise this is the trickle down effect of what pros do. It’s also true at sporting events, etc.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I've often thought the same thing about the number of engineers working on some of the projects with which I've been involved. Apparently, people in positions of authority have a different opinion than yours. So be it.
--Bob

MrMophoto Loc: Rhode Island "The biggest little"

I would think each photographer represents a different news outlet, considering the gravity of the hearings, I'm surprised there aren't many more.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Gravity.
You are kidding, right?

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

LCD -- I agree. Pool coverage from 1 still and 1 or 2 video feeds in the "pit" would suffice. However this is a policy issue rather than one for the individual pros covering the event.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Let’s put term/age/mental health limits on politicians before we start restricting access for the press.

BebuLamar

Don't worry those photographers may not be there a few years from now.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

In my early days as a start-up in professional photography, the studio I worked for did a good volume of work for many charitable and fraternal organizations that held events involving celebrities, VIPs and government and foreign dignitaries. Manuy of our pictures were published in a small now-defunct local newspaper, The Brooklyn Daily Eagle. To gain access to some of these events, the newspaper arranged for me to get a press card, at the time, issued by the New York City Police Department. I ended up in many press-photograher pools working alongside seasoned shooters- great experience! I made a few connections and started "stringing for a few more papers- N.Y. Journal-American, the Daily Forward (A Yiddish Language Daily) and the Long Island Star Journal.

Point is, back in the day, the standard equipment for PRESS photograhers was a 4x5 PRESS camera equipped with a big ugly flash holder (for disposable flas lamps) or a bulkey strobe with a heavy power pack, There were few working with medium formats or 35mm and very few with hand-held telephoto lenses. The sports specialists used 4x5 Graflexex with enormous "Big Bertha" lenses and shot for crow's nest positions in stadiums. The rest of us worked up-close and personal with 135mm or 127mmm NORMAL lenses. Boxing was shot with a 90mm wide-angle. Talk about noise and chaos. Imagine 30+ guys with all that bulkey gear, clattering film holders, yelling for subjects' attention, working just about one on top of the other, clamouring for shots! Y'all think motor drive and mirror-slap noise is loud? I never took a decibel reading but those old press pools were incredibly noisy and you could say somewhat obtrusive. Add a TV or Newsreel crew with a BIG image-orthicon camera and/or Auricon 16mm/sound units, all angry that the still guys are messg up their sound- CRAZY!

Back in the day, that was not an easy job. Try climbing a utility pole or a tree to get a shot with that 4x5 rig! There was a "scoop" competition. In NYC we had at least a dozen daily papers. The tabloids used pictures like crazy! There were deadlines and we could not transmit pictures by telephone. They had to be rushed to the darkroom- negative was processed and often times printed "wet" and of the composing room.

Editors, picture editors, and assignment editors were tough guys and gals and expected results on time, Staffers that did not produce did keep the jobs very long and stringers that did not come up with what was expected did not receive any more assignments. Let's say that kind of work ain't a hobby- its' a JOB and then some.

Nowadays the equipment is more sophisticated, many government building interiors and some other venues are already lighted for TV, but security is tighter and photograher are all clustered in one spot. In the current Senate chamber, photographers are not free to roam all over the space but crouching in place for hours with 2 or 3 bodies can not be a whole lot of good fun. Of course, these proceedings are being televised for all to see but the still shooters are waiting for key momentsand expressions that tell a more dramatic, telling, and possibly intimate story.

Annoying- overkill? I don't think so. I wouldn't complain. We are fortunate to live in countries with a free press and where reporters and photograher have access to many minor and very major events to inform the public and to record history- VISUALLY!

I did some photo combat documentation during my tour in Vietnam and went to work for a daily newspaper in Montreal sometime thereafter. I covered lots of political uinrest and riots, etc. Thank goodness for 35mm gear! After a couple of years, being a more entrepreneurial type, I went back to commercial photography. I did and do the odd press coverage, usually diplomatic stuff and official visit events and feature stories. I suppose I took the easier choices but I still hold a great deal of respect for the true photojournalist.

therwol Loc: USA

I was watching this play out before the hearing actually started. My interest was in what kinds of cameras these pros were using. (That's what's important here.) The ones where I could tell were Canon. But there was one guy who kept winding something on the side of his camera like a film advance. Could it be?

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Why not/ There are some serious professional photographers who still use film and film cameras that are appropriate for that medium.

There is an old fellow, who is often seen photographing current events with a 4x5 press camera. His name escapes me but I think he is a working photograher. He has been written up in several photography magazines and online articles. Large negatives, properly process and expertly printed do have a "look" that some still prefer. It is certainly not unfathomable that a fully accredited photojournalist may be using film in a 35mm or medium format camera to wait for a level-action "rapid advance" film transport. Back in the day, many news shooters prefer Leica M cameras and Rolleiflex TLR for their full synch between the lens shutters in the Rollei and noiseless and virtually vibration-free shutters in the Leica M cameras. Agan, there's a certain "look" that some may still prefer.