C180-012: Dan Chung and Khalid Mohtaseb – Cinematic Journalism

A slow tracking dolly shot sweeps past a devastated street. Groups of people crowd around a truck spraying water on the street as children try to wash themselves. An old, weathered man stares into the camera, his visage suggesting he’s either unaware or uncaring of the camera filming him. All the while a haunting music score amplifies the emotional imagery. There is no voice over. No interviews. No “play by play” of the activities. The film is color graded and definitely has a stylized look. The shots are well composed and steady. Is this journalism? Or is it just another, over color-graded, over stylized portfolio piece with no journalistic integrity? That is the topic of today’s show.

Before bringing you “The Business of Hollywood” series, I felt compelled to tackle a topic that came up earlier in the week when world renown DSLR photojournalist Dan Chung pointed out a raging debate on his blog. Seems like this young, cutting edge filmmaker, with more music videos under his belt than ENG pieces, posted a video montage of his trip to Haiti. The filmmaker was Khalid Mohtaseb. There was a barrage of negative comments about Khalid’s piece from readers on the blog. The topic prompted me to do this episode. Part 1 is Dan giving his take on the subject, and part 2 we’ll have Khalid himself. Both give us a history of their background as well. A very inspirational, educational, and insightful interview. Where do YOU chime in on the debate?

The Business of Hollywood: A Special Series Coming to Crossing the 180

This episode is a great introduction to a series we’re starting called “The Business of Hollywood.” So far I’ve interviewed a TV producer/writer, software developers, the production head for Alcon Entertainment (makers of “Book of Eli”) and the co-director of “Eli,” Albert Hughes of the Hughes Brothers fame. You don’t want to miss these episodes.

Bumper music for this show is “Tater City” by Glenn Shambroom, part of the TRUE ROMANCE collection, courtesy of Triple Scoop Music.

SUPPORT THE SHOW

If you like this show and all that we offer, please consider making a donation. For as less than $3/month, you can help keep this amazing program going. Any amount you decide is appreciated.

Download MP3 | Subscribe in iTunes | Permalink

Haiti Earthquake Aftermath Montage from Khalid Mohtaseb on Vimeo.

30 thoughts on “C180-012: Dan Chung and Khalid Mohtaseb – Cinematic Journalism

  1. Yes, journalism video & photography CAN be cinematic in 95% of circumstances, I suggest — it adds visual engagement and a highly polished professional image for those media outlets that are highly prominent. Only when by doing so, does it detract from the facts and alters the viewer's perception of the situation to a relevant degree, should it not be used. Common sense and correct editorial direction should determine its use.

    1. I totally agree with you Greg. There are some who feel that over-stylized photography or videography somehow detract from that perception. I tend to disagree. Nothing in Khalid's piece does this, IMHO. There's a similar debate on PDN about some war photos taken with an iPhone and a Polaraid filter added. Very interesting what people think: http://www.pdnpulse.com/2010/03/stylized-photojou

  2. As a photojournalist who made the move to solo video journalism, I dont' necessarily ascribe to cinematic looking video journalism (cineVJ as David Dunkley-Gyimah has coined the term).

    It has been my professional experience that too many unskilled shooters are using the shallow DOF look to make up for a lack of compelling story telling. It's fine for those subjects that are more commercial (weddings, commercials, etc) in nature, but to bring glitz and glam to documentary reportage' is a disservice to the craft.

    Cliff Etzel
    Solo Video Journalist
    http://www.solovj.com

    1. Hi Cliff,
      please can you expand on why you feel bringing "cinematic looking video" …to documentary reportage is a disservice to the craft. I'd like to hear you thoughts on the subject.

      Isn't it just a matter of taste, choice and personal style? Personally speaking, as long as "Video Journalism" doesn't cross into the Hollywood realm of adding CGI to footage that is meant to represent 'reality', I personally don't have a problem with it.

      As Ron and Dennis discussed, if adding a cinematic style gets peoples' attention and causes more people to watch it and therefore spread the 'word', then I think the video has achieved something in engaging the viewer. I'm not saying one style of shooting is better than the other, but I wouldn't simply dismiss a video because it contained "glitz and glam".

  3. Ron, take a look at the Backback Journalism project over at American University – http://bit.ly/9A6XXX .

    No where does one see the use of sliders, Magic Bullet, or even Hybrid DSLR acquisition being used. WHY? Because it still isn't proven to be absolutely reliable and the amount of hoop jumping in the field detracts from the shooter from getting their job done efficiently. They are there to report, not give their "cinematic vision" of what the story is.

    Now if those tools are used to promote an organizations fundraising efforts, that's fine. But as someone who has been a visual content creator for over 30 years, I've seen the changes take place and to be honest, most shooters have no idea what it means to remove as much of the gear as possible and make themselves shoot a compelling story with little more than a single camera, the lenses NEEDED to tell the story and proper use of audio. If you have to take a camera slider, external monitor, etc without any proper journalism training because you shoot some cool music videos, no wonder people – myself included – are fed up with todays visual content creators.

    Sure the content is cinematic in scale – but that's not visual journalism, it's make believe. Video journalists are not film makers – they are two very distinct areas – yet many are trying to meld the two – and it doesn't bode well for factual story telling.

    An example of solid documentary story telling is like the first place winner of the 2010 NPPA documentary division as done by Chad Stevens entitled "Leveling Appalachia – The Legacy of Mountaintop Removal Mining". You don't find any use of sliders, Magic Bullet, etc being used to tell a very compelling story that addresses an injustice to the planet, to the citizens involved in the story – this is proper compelling video journalism at its finest. I highly recommend watching it on my solovj blog at http://bit.ly/cOKSRP

    Cliff Etzel
    Solo Video Journalist
    http://www.solovj.com

    1. I hear what you're saying Cliff. And I can understand the importance of journalism in the essence of going out to \”get the story\”. But, there has to be a place in the \”journalism\” category for documentaries that are not purely photojournalistic. Investigative style documentaries like the ones by Errol Morris or produced by companies like Participant Media (makers of The Cove and Food Inc) are IMHO, just as journalistic as someone going into the field to report on a subject. Just because a documentary has cinematography that is set up, interviews that are planned, or even <gasp> may use re-enactments, don't make them any less valid than a solo VJ such as yourself working the in the field with JUST a camera and a lens. I think there's a place for both styles of journalism. The \”run and gun\”, purely PJ style, and the more time-intensive, narrative documentary. Khalid even makes a good point in the interview that in many cases journalists don't color correct or use Magic Bullet because there just isn't any time. But, if you're working on a piece (such as his) that doesn't have that kind of deadline, and you have the time and freedom to create a more involved film, why not make it look as good as possible.I think much of this is just change. Change in how journalist tell stories and report the news. And change always has a way of ruffling the feathers of the status quo.Thanks for the link to the Backpack Journalism project. I'll take a gander. And thanks for the engaging discussion.🙂

      1. Absolutely Ron. It took David Dunkley-Gyimah's insights into the melding of vj'ism and adding certain elements of cinema to force me to think outside the box so to speak. around how to tell stories in a compelling way.

        The challenge I have is how many nowadays are on the bandwagon of using so much equipment to tell what is in essence a solid story in itself without all the technology. I feel it's when someone has to rely upon it because they lack the proper training in journalism that rubs me the wrong way. OTOH, a visual journalist who has the training, and the wisdom/experience to know how much to apply newer technologies without it getting in the way is when I respect the quality of the content/story being told.

        In my own work, I have slowly begun to add subtle hints of cinematic elements, but it has to be done with kid gloves IMO – the moment it becomes obvious, the crutch, is when you realize you're using it to make up for substandard content. That's the defining element IMO – and why I have issue with the premise of this discussion. A music video shooter was sent to cover an important story as a journalist – without any training/experience as a journalist. He shot pretty footage – but it didn't tell a story. From my experience, he failed in accomplishing what was asked of him.

        And that isn't video journalism from where I stand.

        And yes, it's refreshing to have a civilized, rational discussion on what is becoming a hot topic🙂

        Cliff Etzel
        Solo Video Journalist
        http://www.solovj.com

    2. Do you guys think a lot of the debate from Khalid's video may come from it being classified as 'Journalism'. I think it is journalism, but maybe classified in a sub-category of "montage-journalism". Just because the video doesn't containing talking heads and interviews doesn't invalidate the piece as falling under the umbrella of journalism.

      Obviously if one had to record a 'traditional' piece (interview to camera or live event etc), they may not use the slider and so on. As you rightly point out, these things only "detracts from the shooter from getting their job done efficiently". But in Khalid's video, this wasn't the case. This was a 'personal' project he did in his own free time, and he shot the piece in a montage style. If anything, it was observational and I'm sure its purpose was to show how Haiti was "moving on" after the earthquake. I'm sure you could communicate this message in a number of Journalistic styles.

      1. Henry – where did the term "montage-journalism" come from? IMO, there is no story being told – it's footage pieced together that has no beginning, middle and end.

        I'm not talking about talking heads which is de rigeur in broadcast news gathering. Instead, I'm talking about hearing the voices, those who were directly impacted by what happened. This piece is about pretty cinematic clips put together for a personal project to brag about shooting with a 5D and a pocket slider, not telling a compelling story. In documentary projects, music is used subtly in professional documentary story telling, not the foundation. Had the shooter done his due diligence as a properly trained multimedia journalist, he would have known that and done so accordingly.

        The work of Travis Fox, David Dunkley-Gyimah, NYTimes VJ Erik Olsen and many others is the level to aspire to in well rounded story telling from a journalistic POV.

        Cliff Etzel
        Solo Video Journalist
        http://www.solovj.com

        1. Excuse me if you took offence to the term "Montage-Journalism", I made it up. But I think you can understand what I was trying to convey; the piece is a montage telling a story.

          The video may not have told the story in a complete form (beginning, middle and end) but it tells a 'story', or should I say, it documents parts of Haitian's daily life after the earthquake. It tells a story just as a series of still photographs on a wall in a gallery can.

          Though not the case here, I agree with you in some cases, some HDSLR shooters are bragging about shooting with a certain camera. This I think is due to the fact that shooting with a HDSLR is still very new. Many people are still experimenting with the camera and sharing their results with the wider community. I'm pretty sure soon, people will exclude the model of their camera from the title of their films.

          However, saying that, if you don't indicate what you shot your piece on, you get inundated with emails and questions from viewers asking, "what was that shot on?" So I understand where people are coming from.

          Sorry, I'm not in you line of work so I don't know the names or work of those in the links above. Nevertheless, I still think it boils down to style and personal choice for how you tell a story. Some things will work, some won't. The end result will be in how well it is received (by the viewer) I guess.

          This is one debate that will continue to go on especially as now you'll have a lot of "filmmakers' who do not necessary come from a 'traditional' filmmaking background. This new breed now have easier access to high quality video equipment. The won't necessary stick to the traditional rules of shooting, but they will push the boundaries and possible create new styles shooting that if different from the past. As I said, some will work, some won't.

          Creativity is married to experimentation, and if you don't try, you will never discover anything new.

          1. <quote>Creativity is married to experimentation, and if you don't try, you will never discover anything new.</quote>
            I agree Henry. I keep an eye out on what other forms are doing to get a sense of what parts can be applied to what I do and what to leave out. Taking a look at his original footage, TBH, he should have left the color grading out of it. It still did not represent a factual moment – instead it was about his "personal vision" which does not align itself with journalistic integrity. The fact he had no experience as a journalist means he had no frame work by which to operate – and that is a serious issue these days.

            Pure objective journalism is a fallacy – there's always a personal perspective of each journalist as they report a story – but there are guidelines by which one should be operating from to consider themselves a journalist. Khalid deviated outside those set parameters by which journalists operate – and that's the defining issue – if he had said he created a personal cinematic project with his creative vision, this discussion wouldn't be happening. To pass off his personal cinematic vision as being journalistic is more or less disingenuous.

            When I worked as a still photojournalist back when we shot film, you had to abide by certain ethical standards of journalism. Today it seems those standards are being thrown out the window in favor of "Personal Vision". If you have to color grade to suit your "personal vision", you've already violated that code of ethics that are in place as a measuring stick for journalistic integrity.

            Cinematic filmmaking is not bound by those journalistic standards and it's accepted as such – as long as you disclose that up front. To pass off cinematic film making as journalism is – TBH – a lack of integrity on the shooters part.

            I make no claims of being a film maker – I've tried with some personal projects and I learned some things from my attempts, but I'm a story teller and solovj and so I stay within my skill set and push what I know as much as possible within the realm of video journalism.

            Cliff Etzel
            Solo Video Journalist
            http://www.solovj.com

          2. Well not to knock the filmmakers skills. But to me.. if you put Journalism anywhere on this video short, it is lacking majorly. Can you really picture turning on the TV and seeing all of our news like this? It is very random as in shooting everything that moves. I see about 20 story ideas that need to be told. Journalism is about communication of information not random pictures set to sad music. To me it is an art piece of cool images but really not saying much of the true conditions and what it feels like… it lacks human connection. To compare this with a photo essays is bad too…Look at the photo essays of W. Eugene Smith. He was known to stick to one subject mater and follow that subject 24/7 for months at a time and come back with a cohesive story one with a beginning, middle and end. Who cares what camera he use..I am sure when they hand out the Pulitzer they don't ask what kind of camera you used. If it is art say it is art….if your a journalist your in the business of giving as much info possible to your viewers so they can make a well informed opinion on the topic. Just my 2 cents.

            1. Thanks for the comment Brandon. I'd encourage you to listen to the interview if you haven't already. Dan Chung (a celebrated 15 year veteran and whose blog prompted this discussion) makes a great point. That had this been the first video out of Haiti, as-is that would be a problem. But, given the context, this piece serves a very different purpose.When I refer to this piece as being journalistic, I mean to say that it is a form of journalism. Documentary filmmaking to be exact. It's not a traditional documentary. It's not a traditional journalistic piece. It's not meant to tell a full story. I see it as a complement to what is already known and out there. An emotional journey to Haiti. For me (and many others who've seen the piece, Dan Chung included) it was very moving.I think there is room for films like this under the \”journalism\” umbrella. They convey feeling and emotion. That is (to me anyway) just another form of communicating a message. From this piece I know that these people feel destitute, need water, are tired, and need care. It makes me care for their plight.As far as Khalid saying what kind of camera he used, I'm really surprised he's getting grief about that. The video was posted on DSLRNewsshooter.com. The point is to share your DSLR work with other professionals in the business. The audience is filmmakers and other DSLR shooters. For the most part, we WANT to know. That's how we learn. It's like when filmmakers on Vimeo list their gear and filters used. The audience on Vimeo wants to know that stuff. I WOULD suggest he take it out of the opening segment, as it's not needed IN the actual video. So, I'll give you that. But, as Henry commented, if he didn't say ahead of time what he used and how he did id, he'd be inundated with emails from interested parties wanting to know those answers.

              1. Ron, I think we can agree to disagree on your point about Khalid's posted video as being a documentary.

                The video provides nothing except visual content acquired using a DSLR, a slider and music. There's no real journalistic substance to the piece. Instead all it provides is a jumbled set of clips pieced together with music – there's no beginning, middle and ending arc to this piece. There is no continuity that I can see from beginning to end.

                As pro shooters, we know that video is 60-70% audio and as such, Khalid dropped the ball on this piece – this isn't good story telling IMO and any doc shooter worth their salt would more than likely agree with my assessment.

                Had Khalid utilized voice narratives from those very subjects he shot video of – actually spending time with them instead of shooting from a distance as a voyeur, and utilizing those voices as a part of the overall experience of this video piece, you and I would be in agreement and it would have been much stronger in it's overall concept. It then could be called a documentary.

                But to call this a documentary as it stands in execution as of today – I beg to differ.

                Cliff Etzel
                Solo Video Journalist
                http://www.solovj.com

              2. "I see it as a complement to what is already known and out there."
                "From this piece I know that these people feel destitute, need water, are tired, and need care. It makes me care for their plight."

                how do you know they need water? how do you know they are tired? how do you know they need care?

                Did you already knew that from the existing material? Because this piece doesn't say any of this it's just the opinion you take from the material the guy shot.

                surely journalism has to be based on more fact

  4. Well granted I am not a 15yr veteran. I have had my work critic by photojournalists and New photo Editors. One of the basics I hear time after time is too general of a topic.. harder for people to grasp but when you break it down to one subject, it makes it better to get the feeling and increase the emotional connection. Yea granted you can see like you said "I know that these people feel destitute, need water, are tired, and need care. It makes me care for their plight." But what make this place any different from Darfur, Congo, or for that mater any poor section in the getto of the U.S. I am sure 2 or so out of 100 would get that emotional from just the images. Let say you added audio of the kids and the lady by the water truck….you then find out they have not had a clean water to drink and shower for 2 weeks and that lady's kids all died in the the rubble and she is taking care of those kids that were showering by the water truck and the kids lost their parents as well. I know you as a father your self will feel the pain and relate to what is going on at more extreme level( I guess filmmakers call this character development). Art is Art but like I said as a journalist it is your job to tell the whole story using all your tools.

  5. talk about a one sided interview?
    wouldn't it have made more sense to include some of the naysayers in this? I dunno? you know give them a right to reply!! Do a bit of journalism or something rather than this self congratulatory pointless drivel?

    also, lets put a quote into context, you joked about one of my comments from dan's "blog":
    "isn’t it about time people stopped showing us what this camera is capable of?"

    You took it out of context. Acting like that was the only part of the comment! Well it was not, you completely missed the point and then acted all clever about it.
    "honestly, isn’t it about time people stopped showing us what this camera is capable of? Stop with all these demonstrations of tricks, gimmicks, software and hardware and just show us some actual stories, but some meat with the sauce."

    The point being, me as a consumer (and also a producer) of this sort of material, is generally bored with it and want to see more well rounded pieces being presented on blogs like dan's (which I used to subscribe to, and now non longer do).

    1. First James, thanks for commenting on the blog. I sincerely do appreciate the time you took to do so. I want to make a few clarifications and points.One, let there be no mistake that my show is not a journalistic one. This show should not be held up to the standards required for true journalism. It is just that…MY show. If it were a true journalistic show, I'd be way more harder on guests than I am. Most interviews aren't even about controversial topics. They're about the guests and their career or their take on filmmaking. It will on many occasions show my point of view though. Whenever possible and when practical, I will make attempts to have both sides of a debate represented (when there IS a debate.) I put this episode together very quickly. As I pointed out in the episode, I had intended to start my \”Business of Hollywood\” series instead. But, I wanted to strike while the iron was hot and stick this episode in. I had to act fast. It made sense to have on in that case just Dan and Khalid (as opposed to trying to coordinate multiple calls and interviews in a week's time). There were a lot of attacks against Khalid on Dan's blog. I thought that other side had plenty of coverage in the comments there. For whatever reason, Khalid chose not to respond to all of them. I wanted to hear more of his take on the topic since we was not doing so on Dan's blog. As far as me taking your comment out of context. Even with the context you put here, nothing changes. The blog is about DSLR news shooting. Khalid was invited to post his video and explain how he did it. To bash him for doing what he was invited to do, on a site that is ABOUT DSLR news shooting, still seems off to me. Great, you felt his story lacked substance. That's totally fine. Comment (with professionalism and compassion) on THAT issue. Why go on about how frustrated you are hearing about all the things this camera can do? The issue really wasn't about the fact that Khalid talked about the camera and what it could do. The issue was whether the content he provide was true journalism. If he had shot and edited a piece that you and the other dissenters felt was TRUE journalism (however you define it, e.g. a beg, mid, and end; story context, etc.) AND THEN he went on to explain his shots, etc, there would be no debate. Maybe there'd still be one or two comments about the slider, but if he really moved you with a journalistic story, you wouldn't be complaining about him saying all that this camera could do and telling people to \”stop showing us what this camera is capable of.\” Why would you ask for such a thing on a blog where that is the main point. People who read it are going to WANT to know how someone shot and/or edited something. I for one appreciate it when people like Khalid take time to share their skills. The thing that really got me about the dissenters on the blog was not that they felt Khalid's piece wasn't true journalism. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. For me it was all about their approach. It was frankly rude and unprofessional. Instead of showing appreciation for someone who went out of his way to share how he did something (which, in most filmmaking circles is widely praised and applauded), he was actually attacked for sharing his knowledge. And the criticism about his piece was not at all constructive. Khaild is only 24 years old. I would guess that many of the dissenters are considerably older and more experienced. As I commented on Dan's blog, there was a missed opportunity for you all to come along side a very young, empirically talented, yet inexperienced journalist, and provide compassionate, constructive criticism. Words are very powerful, and they have the power to build up or destroy a person's spirit. Or affect one's direction in life. Who knows what kind of journalist Khalid COULD become if those like you and Mark and the rest, who DO have the experience, knowledge, and wisdom, mentor and teach him what he could do different to make his work ring more true. Instead, the kind of critiques given only hurt the industry. I think unprofessional, mean-spirited, unconstructive criticism like that does far, far more harm to your industry than a 24-year-old-filmmaker, who admittedly has not done a lot of this kind of stuff, make a \”journalistic\” piece that is too \”MTV\” for your liking.

      1. "To bash him for doing what he was invited to do, on a site that is ABOUT DSLR news shooting, still seems off to me."
        no one bashed him for posting on the site etc. people just raised questions about his work and expressed opinions. if people are only invited to comment if its going to be positive then in all honesty. What's the point?

        "Why go on about how frustrated you are hearing about all the things this camera can do?"
        well that comment was more a generalisation than a comment directed at Khalid. and I stand by it. I'm bored of seeing these montages and I want to see something real. it's my opinion.

        But more than this I'm generally confused by the amount of it when I don't see a viable market for the end result? who's buying news content like this? so far the only place I'm seeing it is on websites advertising the cameras, software, lenses, and equipment.

        "Khaild is only 24 years old. I would guess that many of the dissenters are considerably older and more experienced."
        Maybe guess again. I'm 26 and I'm 1 year out of school.
        You're probably just looking at a general selection from the industry.

        "the criticism about his piece was not at all constructive. "
        "there was a missed opportunity for you all to come along side a very young, empirically talented, yet inexperienced journalist, and provide compassionate, constructive criticism."
        I'd disagree with you here. if you think the ciriticisms given by myself and some of the others were harsh then you need to get in the real world. And anyway, It's all about how you take it.

        I'd say the feedback given by many was constructive…
        most people would have preferred to see more content to put the piece into context as they felt this was missing. How much more contrsuctive can it get?

        it simply depends on whether you want to hear it (again… there's always this stance against negative comments, but why can't people look at it, the comments were not an isolated incident but voiced by many, so maybe they have a point?)

        seriously… maybe people should have suggested a different lens? or some filter? would that have been better? that sort of stuff is just generally easier to hear isn't it, and doesn't come across as a personal attack.

        1. >>no one bashed him for posting on the site etc. people just raised questions about his work and expressed opinions. if people are only invited to comment if its going to be positive then in all honesty. What's the point?<<
          I was commenting on people bashing him b/c he talked about HOW he did it. Or that they're sick of hearing how much the camera can do. I don't want a site that is all about just positive opinions. Never said that. But, since it's a DSLR-related site, people who post videos on it will most likely talk about how they did what they did.

          >>But more than this I'm generally confused by the amount of it when I don't see a viable market for the end result? who's buying news content like this? so far the only place I'm seeing it is on websites advertising the cameras, software, lenses, and equipment.<<

          I can't comment on the market for this kind of journalism per se. I have to defer to those more knowledgeable about the news market more specifically. But if I may be so bold, I would hazzard to guess that you will see more news pieces like this… or rather, maybe not like khalid's specifically, but ones that are more "cinematic" and engaging. CNN's annual humanitarian awards show that airs during Thanksgiving comes to mind. Many of those video packages summarizing the nominees were very artfully and cinematically shot and edited. The black and white short films by award-winning journalist Chris Morris that Dan Chung posted today also point to a direction where news may be going. (http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/2010/04/05/the-cin

          Lastly, regarding your comment about the criticism being constructive and if i thought it was harsh, then I better "get in the real world" as you put it. Let me take the opportunity to live up to my own words since you're all of 26.🙂 I'm 41 and I can assure you I live "in the real world." I've worked for large companies and small. I've had the opportunity to manage large groups of people, and be mentored and managed by top notch fortune 1000 managers. I've owned my own video business for almost 8 years and I first took filmmaking courses back in '92. I have been the recipient of constructive criticism, harsh criticism, bashing, as well as praise and awards. So, I can attest to the fact that in this business, you have to have a thick skin. I don't deny that. Doesn't mean I will support mean-spirited, unconstructive criticism when I see it. And I know it when I see it. There's a way one can give critiques (beyond just what kind of lens to use) without it being personal. Many of the comments to Khalid weren't done that way.

          Dissenters to Khalid's piece weren't just saying he need to user fewer slider shots. His work was called "rubbish"; just another bunch of pretty shots; irresponsible; crappy slider work; etc. IMHO, those kind of comments (and the context in which they were told) doesn't seem constructive.

          Bottomline: Khalid is a big boy. He doesn't need me to defend him, and it seems based on the interview his skin is indeed thick enough. I think we can all agree to disagree on whether his piece is "journalism."

          JD, I applaud your passion for this topic. I really do. It's obvious you care about this industry. Just be open to other ways of doing things that go outside the norm. The biggest harbingers of change always come on the coat tails of passionate debates such as this. Recognize when you see that going on in an industry, and make the decision to embrace that change.

          1. You've got to remember this is the internet.
            People don't act in the same manner on here as they do in the real world, and it's much easier to say things… and I've never seen internet critiques that haven't gone down this route.

            "rubbish"; just another bunch of pretty shots; irresponsible; crappy slider work;

            In addition to that you've surely got to look at how the commentators articulated themselves and their views later on in the discussion. you can't just take snippets like that from.

            "Recognize when you see that going on in an industry, and make the decision to embrace that change. "

            you don't have to embrace change… especially if you feel it's not the right sort of change. I personally think pieces like this are going in the wrong direction (being almost totally stylised and lacking in content),

            I embrace a different form of change.. I believe in the more hyper local efforts and think this will be the step to the future… but this is a totally different story.

    1. I really don't think he was comparing himself to Natchwey. Come on. Khalid's young, but he's not stupid. He was just making the point that even Natchwey makes stylistic decisions on how he post processes his photos. He just doesn't shoot and throw them in a magazine. Khalid was defending his decision to do color correcting as a way to make his film look better by stating the fact that even the \”masters\” do that.

Comments are closed.