Goodness me, can you imagine it, as long as
12 years ago!
I quote from an article, an interview with one David Kitchin,
Product Sales Manager, Professional Output for Kodak, in Professional
Photographer (Nov 2004 issue) this is his perspective, a young
man judging by his picture, early thirties perhaps. Modern,
bright, ambitious, today’s man, but completely lacking
in knowledge of those events of the past which have helped
shape the present upon which he sees fit to express an opinion.
There seems to be a general assumption here from both Kodak
(as expressed by David Kitchin) and Professional Photographer
magazine as expressed by Terry Hope who conducted the interview,
that Kodak’s problem with film sales and by implication
Ilfords is entirely due to the advent of Digital Photography.
A view expressed by many in the business who I am afraid to
say seem to be totally unaware of many of the facts of the
matter upon which they care to pontificate.
One of the major reasons of Kodak’s problem with film
sales originated in the late 1970’s with the advent of
Fuji coming into the film market in a big way.
A leading Sports photographer in the UK at that time came
into the shop I was managing (Leeds Cameras In Brunswick Centre)
to show me the results of a shoot he had undertaken. He had
photographed a major International Golf Tournament. The weather
was atrocious. He was using Fuji film in place of his normal
Ektachrome film.
The film had just been processed and he simply could not
believe the results! Dreadful weather conditions, rain, dull
and dreary, no light but trannies that had good colour saturation,
that is in comparison to the overpowing blue cast that Extachrome
produced in these conditions at that time.
Saturation was the name of the game.
Very quickly photographers from all areas of the profession
switched from Ektachrome to Fuji chrome. Picture Editors of
Magazines began to ask for that saturated colour in their colour
transparencies, It was a Fuji E6 daylight colour film that
everyone was asking for, Kodak was losing out.
They were not just losing out with a competitor to Ektachrome
but Fuji was also producing a slow film, I think it was 40ASA
as a competitor to Kodachrome.
It was every bit as good, fine gradation and again saturated (in comparison)
and above all E6. You could have your film back in two hours not two days and
it had all the qualities of Kodachrome plus that saturation of colour that
was now becoming a standard, this was when Kodak really began to lose out.
The writing was on the wall as they say.
Also at this time 35m colour was
the new big thing.
35 mm. film, 35 mm. cameras of professional standard, E6
development (colour film developed in one hour.), 35mm. colour
took off in every field but particularly in the Professional
news and Fashion area.
Ilford was at the beginning of a long and slow decline in the popularity of
their niche area of B&W photography.
So
35mm Film ( as a still photographers film ) had now become
professional.
35mm Cameras were also becoming accepted as professional.
Colour film came into its own with E6 development and of
course the development of 35 mm. Photography in general.
B&W film and paper and chemicals began a long slow decline.
35mm cameras began their ascendancy (another story).
Video in cine photography took over from film and heralded
the Digital takeover in Still Photography which is now happening,
in fact in many areas it’s already taken over. Whatever
anyone says, the media of today and tomorrow is digital and
digital itself is already becoming compromised and the media
of the future already on the horizon is Digital utilizing one
of its particular attributes of being able to be transmitted
by Radio as well as over the wire. This will have profound
effects on the technology.
Digital started its takeover professionally, literally with
the advent of the Kodak 35mm Digital cameras based on the Nikon & Canon
SLR body's in 1992, which is where we come back to the comment
of David Kitchin:
‘Since way back in 1992’
But now you know some of the real background details leading
to Kodak’s declining Film sales and Ilfords problems.
Amplified of course by the advent of Digital Media developed
so assiduously by Kodak. Working in another direction!
Naim Attallah
A feature in the Evening Standard of the 18th of October
2004 Speaks of a supposed breach of confidence of Naim Attallah’s
former secretary come P.A. whatever, Jennie Erdal.
She, it seems is attempting to make capital out of the fact
that she was the ghost writer of some of Naim’s former
material and she is suggesting, that now she has left his employ,
his literary career is over. The implication being that she
was in fact not just the ghost writer but basically the Author
of the books published under the name of Naim Attallah. What
complete and utter nonsense.
Might I point out the fact
that a Ghost Writer is generally a “Hack” as
we say in the business? She or he as the case might be
are invariably very good and skilled at putting pen to
paper or finger to Word processor but the creativity
and experience is with the person they are ghosting for.
Naim Attallah is an Author. Publisher and Gentleman
of some consequence and a person possessed of that rare
creative ability to “Write”. He is more than
just a professional journalist. He has flair and style,
coupled with that rare quality of unique and personal
creativity which he expresses through his writing.
I happened to have interviewed him relative to his
book ‘Women’ mentioned in the article
I have no doubt that Jennie Erdal carried out her duties
very well as a Clerk, secretary, typist, PA or whatever.
Naim is the sort of person that would not have tolerated
otherwise but I can assure you that Naim is in deed the
author, the creative force that was behind this book
that was a top seller at the time of its publication
and I append here a short review and photographs published
at that time
Women- by Naim Attallah.
Naim Attallah said “ I have always been in love with
the written word”, He told how as a child “I used
to listen to the wireless and I used to listen to the news
and I used to run my own newspaper. I used to stencil it and
I used to sell it to all my father’s friends and I used
to comment on the news, write leaders and so on and so forth
and even I used to sit on the veranda of my grandmother’s
house in Nazareth where I used to spend the holidays with her
and I used to write short stories and little poems”.
This indicated perhaps not so much how good a journalist
he might become but rather more his innate sense of business.
It is his success as a businessman, which has enabled his ability
as a journalist and author to blossom.
Naim Attallah was born in Palestine in 1931. He came to England
in 1949 to study as an Engineer, had many jobs and eventually
found a niche in a Bank in the city. Branched out on his own
and bought Quartet in 1976 when as he puts it, “ My publishing
career so to speak began and I never looked back ever since”.
A very successful man and his critics of his blockbuster of
a book ‘Women’ very often seem just as interested
in criticising his business success as they do his book. This
could be of course that they find it difficult to generally
make any adverse criticism of the book.
If you were to believe his critics you would really wonder
how Naim manages to scrape together a living. They speak disparagingly
of just about everything he owns and attempt to suggest that
all his ventures lose money. It is implied that he is a millionaire
playboy who indulges himself (If he were I don’t see
why he shouldn’t). It is suggested that Apollo, a beautiful
glossy art magazine he owns, could not possibly make money,
nor Literary Review, a very high quality magazine of literary
criticism. It is said that because he owns the publishing business
that published his book it’s a vanity publication.
What any of this has to do with his book, goodness knows!
The feminist movement of course, find the book hard to accept
but do not know what to say about it. The point is of course
that Naim has simply set down what women have said to him and
makes no judgement. He does not ‘question’ the
difference between men and women, he observes. He is exploring
the difference.
The cleverness of the man is the subjects he chose to talk
about, the women he chose to talk to. His ability to encourage
these particular women to talk to him in this way and his good
sense in not making a judgement. I think this shows a much
greater awareness of human nature and women, than Naim has
been given credit for.
Naim Attallah gave this book a great deal of thought before
he started it. He pondered a lot as he put it and one of his
thoughts was that it should be the first of a trilogy. His
second volume would be called ‘Love’. “The
love of a nun 18 years old for Jesus Christ, the deep love
of a father for his daughter. The extreme love, the turbulent
love, the love that destroys you”. His third volume, ‘Power’. “Because
I am totally fascinated by power. All kinds of power, financial
power, spiritual power, every conceivable power, physical power,
sexual power. Power in itself is fascinating”.
He has now decided to write ‘Power ‘ next rather
than ‘Love’!
These are not the ponderings of a millionaire playboy. Naim is tough, practical
and sharp. He is also sensitive, emotional and proud. It is a man of some character
that contemplates writing a trilogy of books, entitled Women, Power and love.
To move beyond contemplation and actually do so, requires some strength of
purpose to withstand the obvious criticism that writing about such emotive
subjects will evoke. This is Naim Attallah.
JPBS/MS
October 1988.
________________________________________________
A further piece about Jennie Erdal appears in T2 (The daily
supplement to the Times) of the 17th December, 2004 in the
form of an interview conducted by Valerie Grove. A poor piece
of journalism very biased in favour of Mrs Erdal although ironically,
the articles last sentence, suggesting that she (Mrs Erdal)
might now write something herself, speaks volumes.
Naim sums up the situation very well in a letter to the Times
of the 22nd December, 2004 being both contemptuous and dismissive
and rather sad at what can only be described as the betrayal
of a trusted friend and confidant Jennie Erdal and indicating
his contempt for Journalists such as Valerie Grove (and many
others in the past) who write with such prejudice.
On Photojournalism
Photojournalism is dead------Long live
Photojournalism!
This seems to sum up the debate that has recently been taking
place in Eight magazine
Photojournalism! What a contentious issue it has become, it
is as though it were the Holy Grail of Photography, Sought
by many, apparently found by some but all in contention as
to its authenticity.
Unfortunately little of what has been said in three of the
last five issues of Eight magazine in debating this subject
has been without prejudice or ignorance or both which is a
shame because Eight magazine is a magazine very much respected
within the field of photojournalism and one would have hoped
and expected that the debate would have been a little more
informed.
The debate was introduced in an Editorial (by Jon Levy the
Editor) in the December 2003 Issue of Eight Magazine followed
by an essay in the same issue by one Colin Jacobson. According
to this introduction It would seem that there are two schools
of Photojournalism: The true Photojournalistic
school as espoused by Eight magazine, practised by photographers
who according to Jon Levy cease to avoid danger and strive
to make a bold statement with their work the dangers apparently
being physical financial and social. They also, unlike artists
look outside of themselves at the world around them. …Above
all they are driven by a belief and a sense of purpose to expose
and disseminate a message that cannot be brought.
Really, have you ever read such pretentious
nonsense?
The financial bit seems to be of considerable concern to all,
that is all those who attack the Art photographers because
it seems that they, the Art Photographers are the guys who
make it, not the poor Levy- Jacobson crowd who seem to spend
all their time bemoaning the fact that no one supports them,
poor dears.
According to Eight Magazine we then further have the sham
school, these are the Usurpers the shallow and meaningless
Art Photographers who are all inward looking and who undertake
their photography simply to Idolize the Individual, i.e. themselves
or their colleagues and I quote “ Its sense of purpose
is not clear and the work, like the artist, is shallow”.
Unfortunately for and much to the annoyance of the Eight School,
as I have said before, it seems that these guys the ‘ArtPhotographers’ are
the ones who get all the financial support, particularly from
the book publishers and the Art Galleries.
In actual fact the editorial is a bit of a jumbled up mess
but in essence you gather that the Eight crowd are the bees
knees in Photojournalism and the art Photographers really are
the Pits as of course are all those dreadful types that support
them.
Such sad and silly remarks borne of ignorance
Jealousy and prejudice.
The essay following this introduction is by one Colin Jacobson
apparently a former picture editor to the Observer magazine
and The independent magazine, He seems to take a very pessimistic
view of the subject, no doubt due to the very narrow perspective
he seems to have upon the subject. Incidentally he also appears
in the credits in this particular issue of Eight Magazine for
the first time as a contributing Editor. Whether this is of
any significance I leave you to judge.
This man seems to have gone down one dark dreary narrow corridor
of experience and never to have stepped out into the light
of day. You would believe that his experience would have enabled
him to make some valid comments, but no, he rants and raves,
his comments distorted by anger and ignorance and coloured
by prejudice. To gain some knowledge of the man take a look
at his web site www.reportage.org go
to ‘About this site’ and read what he has to say,
look at the rest of the site and note that instead of developing
as promised in 2002 this was when it fell asleep.
It represents the man moribund, suspended in animation, mothballed.
In his ranting and raving He quotes from “Sontag”,
which is hardly surprising, she had about as little visual awareness
and visual understanding about photography
as he does. She wrote two books on the subject but without
photographs.
“But I’m not as I told the people who invited
me to Wellesley, a photographer; I do not take photographs;
I don’t like to take photographs; I do not own a camera;
and I’m not a photography critic.” (From an interview
with Susan Sontag published in ‘Photography within the
Humanities’ Copyright 1977 by Wellesley College.). See
my more extensive review in(The List)
Apparently it seems that Colin Jacobson was asked by Eight
magazine to review a book, American Knight by Paul Graham.
This book, is apparently said by the publishers to be a piece
of photojournalism, and it’s this description of the
book as photojournalism, which sends Colin Jacobsen very nearly
apoplectic. How dare Art Photographers such as Paul Graham
think of their work in such terms and when influenced by other
art photographers such as Eggleston it is even worse
He Lambasts the contemporaries within the art scene of Paul
Graham and Eggleston and in particular those he sees as being
their supporters and I quote “ the gallery owners, curators,
critics, gurus, theorists and lecturers in general ” no
exceptions and he accuses in particular the curators at the
Photographers gallery of attempting to wipe out much of the
finest reportage photography of the 20th century by their remarks
but does not seem to understand that he and Jon levy are attempting
to do the same with Art Photography, that huge world wide body
of photography which has existed, grown and flourished since
photography began .
He rambles away castigating the art photographers for 2 and ½ pages
before he gets to criticize the actual book then writes it
off in half a page.
Mainly its art photographers are crap, those that support
them speak drivel and The Brethren of the Eight again are the
bee’s knees.
We now move on to Paul Wombell Director of the Photographers
Gallery and author of the second feature (In vol 2 no 4 March
2004 issue) it is in answer to the essay by Colin Jacobson.
Unfortunately it shows a complete Ignorance of the subject
of photojournalism, and more astonishingly an almost complete
lack of knowledge of the photographic world, although his arguments
in support of Art Photographer photojournalists is quite cogent
He ends his essay by implying that Colin Jacobsen is extraordinarily
prejudiced and that there are none so blind as those who will
not see, A sentiment with which I entirely agree when applied
to Colin Jacobsen although I feel that his (Paul Wombells)
view of the art photography world is very narrow
For instance His notion as expounded in his essay that colour
art photography was new in 1987 and that the media was ignoring
the photographers who practiced this sort of work is of course
complete nonsense. I was exhibiting and competing with others
in doing so, in colour in the late 1940s and the early 1950s
and I was just one of the many who did so in those days, and
this work was receiving regional national and international
publicity. In 1980-81 I had my own Gallery in Mayfair in the
heart of London and we were exhibiting both commercial and
Art photography in colour and receiving worldwide publicity
in every type of media.
His further assertions that 35mm B and W photographers working
as photojournalists travelling the world concentrating on famine
and war is a modern invention and that photographers specialising
in one subject only came into existence in the 1950s and the
60s is also complete nonsense.
I myself was specializing in my photography in the late 40s,
as were many of my contemporaries and predecessors going back
to the early 1900s and before.
These comments show his lack of Knowledge of the scene and
consequently his credibility is brought into question.
The drift of his essay is that Paul Wombell and the Photographers
Gallery brotherhood at the Photographers gallery invented Photojournalism
and are the the modern crusaders.
Laughable Nonsense
I always think of the Photographers Gallery as being rather
like the Social Benefit offices of photography where the unfortunates
of the photographers’ fraternity go to draw their benefits,
get their fixes, and undergo their therapies. The Photographers
Gallery has that ‘Aura’.
The third essay (Vol 3 No 1) is by one Witold Krassowski
who works with Network Photographers. This Essay, mainly a
criticism of Art Colleges and the way photography is taught,
is basically Blather and Whinge and I will not bore you with
its blather.
A further essay by a Gary Knight, Photographer, follows this
essay. A founding member of V11. A bit of a whinge, but practical.
But little to do with Photojournalism.
The Theme that seems to be common to all these guys is one
of all having very narrow views of the photographic world and
these views that they hold are very prejudiced, none are capable
of an objective appraisal of the scene. In general their visual
literacy appears to be very poor (I expand a little on Visual
literacy in the J S scene) and their photographic experience
seems to be very narrow.
Photojournalism as per the J.S. Scene
The JS view is that:
Photo Journalism is the essence of photography. It is photography
and it belongs to and can be practised by all. The man who
is essentially an Art Photographer is no less able to produce
valid pieces of photojournalism than the guy whose only subject
is war and famine. Whether B& W film is used, or colour
neg, or trannie, or no film at all, I.E. digital, whether printed “straight” in
the darkroom or manipulated in Photoshop is of no particular
consequence.
The utter nonsense and the constant blather about the portrayal
of the truth, an attribute of which only a very special few
are able, and that these individuals are thus confirmed as
Photojournalists of substance. Really, one does know what to
say, other than-
What utter and complete nonsense.
Every Image produced is a manipulation
Photography by its very nature is a manipulative process.
The Camera, the Lens, the film, the media, the processing,
the aperture, the film speed, the perspective, the depth of
field, the format, everything affects the result between the
original perception of the subject and the production of the
final Image. There may be a hundred variables, a hundred choices
that can be made which will determine the final result.
And how can you Judge whether this final image is in fact
a depiction of the truth? How can you supposedly judge its
veracity without having been able to view and compare the actual
event with the image of the event. (which normally is impossible)
And finally why not a Fairy Story, why should I not make a
statement. Tell a story; give my interpretation of the scene
via a Fairy Story? If I think that is the way to convey the
scene.
This attempt to delineate the creativity of photography, to
contain it within a certain perspective is simply against its
nature. For goodness sake, the essence of photography is its
freedom of expression. Photojournalism embraces this freedom,
it ranges here and there, and it has no boundaries, no constraints,
of subject, of media, or style.
The essence of photographic expression in Photo Journalism
is its freedom of expression in whatever style or manner the
photographer may choose to express his creativity. Does it
not strike those who would seek to constrain and contain photography
within their stylistic boundaries, within constraints of expression,
of style, of political correctness, that these constraints
are the death of creativity and of the expression of truth.
And the use of Photoshop by the creative Photojournalist does
not alter the truth it amplifies the truth.
Art Photography broadens, amplifies, develops and shows the
truth.
Art in general is a matter of truth, an attempt by the Artist
to show what lies behind the Apparent reality
This is my view of the way it is, borne not of ignorance and
prejudice, but of experience, 57 years of experience and of
Knowledge gained by immersing oneself in every facet of photography
in that time (JS Scene) A view it seems shared by most of the
great and Knowledgeable photographers of the last 150 years.
It is what photography is all about. It is the telling of
a story.
Photographs by their very nature tell a Story.
You photograph a flower and you are telling the World how
beautiful the flower is or maybe not, it does not matter, you
are telling a story.
You photograph a starving child and you are letting the World
know about the plight of this unfortunate child.
You photograph a girl, digitally manipulate the image in Photoshop,
and give it an apt title and again your telling the whole world
a story. Your manipulation of the Image enhances the Message.
You put a dozen pictures together, write a 1000 words, you
have a feature, again you are telling a story.
You edit a collection of pictures, pick a 100 Images, write
10,000 words, you have a book, a narrative and again a story.
All, Photo Journalism, All the telling of a story.
This sounds straightforward and down to earth. The telling
of a story all nice and simple. OK?
NO Unfortunately. Its not so simple
today, nothing is anymore. In today’s photographic environment,
In today’s culture, today’s Society, we have the
Trendy set, 25, 35, 45 years of age or so all considering themselves
to being young, modern and of course equal (in their own estimation)
but above all they are in fact Arrogant, they are possessed
of this Supreme Arrogance in their Ignorance.
They deny experience:
It’s of the past.
It implies inequality,
It implies lack of knowledge. Therefore it is unacceptable.
They deny Standards and Principle:
Standards would measure their abilities, achievements, attainments,
also of course in other words their inadequacies. This of course
is not acceptable.
Standards also create an elite, they cannot accept this, either.
Principle:
Totally unacceptable to the unconscionable people of today.
There is an attempt by some of these people presently involved
in the Photographic World to hijack Photo Journalism as a vehicle
to disguise their own inadequacies, their own prejudices, never
to show the power of the people to triumph over adversity but
always dwelling upon their own cleverness and trendiness in
only showing the poverty the sleaze the degradation, always
the negative side of the equation.
There is always the ‘ politically correct’ generated
crap about depicting the equality and generality (In reality
the Mediocrity) of the masses, but never to show the individualism,
quality and achievement of the Elite.
Also they always picture the Negative side of those who are
poor or disadvantaged and never the Positive achievement and
the very often happiness and contentment of those people in
the face of their apparent adversity.
Some of course think this is what photojournalism is all about
that this is what it has always been about and that the only
way to express this is to be as they see it deep and meaningful
and profound, to clothe the discussion and practice of photography
in such profundity that they, the arrogant trendy celebrity
cognoscenti are the only ones that understand.
What utter Tosh.
How many of these earnest Wingers and Whiners have actually
been to and Photographed as I have the camps and towns, cities
and villages in Uganda, Kampala, The Sudan, Somalia, Mogadishu,
Baroma, Hargisha, Sana in the Yemen, Iraqi, Iran, Oman. The
outback of Bangladesh, Kathmandu or Pokhara in Nepal, The Sikhs
in Amritsa or The Tamales in Sri Lanka. Photographed both the
rich and the poor the disadvantaged and the Privileged, in
the camps and the towns, the great Houses and the Palaces.
Pictures of the World the People The Happenings The Reality
The Dreams The Truth The Good and the Evil, the way it could
be the way it is This is the world of J.S. Reportage, Photojournalism,
Documentary Photography, call it what you may but only a small
part of the J. S. scene. I photograph in a refugee camp in
the Sudan Desert and I adopt a style, a method of working,
call it what you will, an attitude appropriate to the environment
and what I am trying to portray and if I photograph a metallurgical
specimen in a laboratory I adopt a different attitude and method
appropriate to the subject. I spend a day
at Chelsea Flower show and two days manipulating the shots
in Photoshop. Again an entirely different subject requiring
an entirely different approach to convey the message, the story,
the reality. The manipulated picture taken at Chelsea no less
real or true than the picture taken in the outback of the dessert
in the Sudan.
I tell stories of Happiness and sadness.
I try to tell the stories objectively and without prejudice
but never the less with passion and feeling.
No Jon Levy.
No Colin Jacobson.
No Wild Krassowski.
You talk of the truth and you know nothing of it.
You live in a world contained within the boundaries of your
prejudice.
Photojournalism is not just your Domain to be practised as
you prescribe, it is not to be corralled, you cannot subvert
it to your way of thinking.
Photojournalism today is practised in the world, as it
is, not in the world, as you might like it to be.
The World in the context of your attitude to Photojournalism
cannot simply be imposed upon the real world in the context
of today.
Photojournalism belongs to everyone and it is all the richer
for being so.
Photojournalism wrapped up in all your prejudices and restricted
within the boundaries of your pretentiousness would become
stifled and moribund (like Colin’s website), It would
die.
Your views and your attitude are borne of ignorance of the
whole scene. You see so little and so narrowly.
Your experience is contained within the narrow boundaries
of your prejudices and
you gain your knowledge in general through the filter of your
prejudices.
You colour everything with your anger and aggression.
You are truly arrogant in your Ignorance of what photography
is really all about.
For Goodness sake, wake up, broaden your horizon. Look outside
of your narrow blinkered preduces. Walk out into the light,
the fresh air of truly creative Photography as exemplified
in the J.S. Scene, have a little humility.
Photography is not
to be constrained, look at the photography on this site from
photographers of many diverse persuasions and style. Photographers
whose work is of consequence. This is photojournalism free
of constraints and prejudice. Photojournalism as it is now.
The reality not the mirror of the virtual reality.
All content, the pictures and text appearing on this site is the copyright of J.S.
Library International. To use any picture on this site or any of the pictures held by J.S. Library International simply contact by phone fax or e-mail
For phone and Fax details etc please click Communication. For e-mail
click Connect.
Text lists on this site may be loaded down and used privately as you wish. If you wish to publish any of the “lists” or any excerpt from the text on this site, you are quite free to do so providing you acknowledge the source and authorship with the credit “courtesy
of J.S. Library International.”
