Caught Ball Watching

It's not everyday you get a sideline seat to the winning touchdown pass in an instant classic National Championship college football game, so when the time comes, you'd better hope you don't screw it up. 

Unfortunately, as many people on social media have come to realize there are at least four photographers who did in regards to the CFB National Championship game between Alabama and Georgia on January 8. 

I think that there's already been plenty said already about how if you're a photographer covering these moments you need to be prepared. Have a prefocused wide-angle zoom lens that you can quickly pull up for this moment. Speaking from experience, even then, you're going to be spraying and praying a lot of the time unless you happen to see the play developing and have time to get your eye to the viewfinder, so even being prepared you're going to be counting on luck to get a great shot. 

But, that's why you come prepared. 

Let's get it out of the way now, anyone who has covered football has been in this situation. We missed the shot. And god, does it suck. Like, it really sucks. There's that moment of realization and in your head all you can think of is "F***! I'm never going to work again!" 

The two women in the middle of the image appear to be students to me. Both appear to be rather young. One seems to be wearing a Georgia scarf, and the other appears to have a mid-level DSLR to compliment her telephoto-and-monopod set up, much as I would have looked on the sidelines when I was in college borrowing lenses from the photojournalism department.

And, I have no idea about the work history of the other people there. 

So, I'm not going to bash these people for not getting the shot. It was a mistake and we all make them. I'm just happy that none of mine have ended up on national television. 

Rather, what I'd like to discuss is an overarching issue and one that goes beyond a single play or a single game, and that is the simple fact that there are many "photographers" at these college football games that don't need to be there. 

I have a friend who works a lot of NFL games and I remember once asking him as to whether he prefered that, or college games. 

"NFL for sure. There's so much more room on the sidelines. You don't have a bunch of bloggers and sponsors clogging the sidelines." 

If this isn't the truth? 

Next time you watch a college football game, pay close attention to the sidelines. They're jam packed with people. Photographers, videographers, sideline reporters, recruits, sound crews and sponsors. So. Many. Sponsors. 

These are the fans who paid their way onto the field, somehow. they walk the sidelines in their school colors often with their kids or significant other in tow. They take selfies, remarking about how "If we can just get a stop here, we'll be good." or "Our offense needs to pick it up!" 

In theory, most college fields have two zones along the sidelines that should separate working photographers, videographers, etc. from the people who pay their way onto the field. One line that the sponsors can't cross, and a line in front of that marking how close the working people can get to the field. This is a lie. A blatant and awful lie. 

Add to this the people shooting for blogs with an entry level camera with a kit lens (I'm not hating, just saying that you're probably better grabbing wire photos) and you're stuck with a sideline that is packed and makes things very difficult to navigate when trying to figure out when and where to claim a spot. 

In reality, I think that's why there has been so much backlash against these poor people from the ESPN screen grab. There is probably an untold number of photographers who dreamed of shooting that game and were told "Sorry, we just can't fit you in." 

They then turn on their TV to see this and in the back of their head they immediately start to imagine how many sideline passes were given away to random sponsors and bloggers with a readership of 250 people (still beating me) and it's easy to imagine why they would be angry. 

"That could be me in that spot! And I wouldn't have missed that photo!" 

Really, I'm not sure what could be done to fix these issues other than requiring certain amounts of subscribers or pageviews to get a photo pass (possible, many events do this) and telling sponsors to enjoy the game from a suite (never going to happen). Honestly, I'm just talking into the void now. 

All of this is to say, we shouldn't be hating on these photographers for missing a shot, because we've all done it. We should be hating on a system that robs many very talented photographers (I'm not including myself her) from even getting that chance because there's just not enough space. 

The Instagram Monster

It's been an interesting year. Over the past twelve months I've shot everything from the Kentucky Derby, to Louisville football, to fires, to Louisiana swamps. My camera has helped me see and experience many things. Hopefully you've enjoyed them, and hopefully you'll continue to in 2017. #yearinreview #2016bestnine #bestof2016 #nikon #nikon📷 #nikonphotographers #fujifeed #fuji #happynewyear #memoriesmade #hashtaggedpodcast #bestof

152 Likes, 3 Comments - Bobby Ellis (@bobbydellis) on Instagram: "It's been an interesting year. Over the past twelve months I've shot everything from the Kentucky..."

There's something to be said about the power of Instagram. With around 600 million active users, Instagram is an amazing marketing and advertising tool for photographers. 

Companies like the New York Times, Getty, Associated Press, The Washington Post, the NFL, the NHL and many, many more have Instagram accounts that help them highlight the photographs they want their readers and fans to see. 

On top of that, there are literally millions of extremely talented photographers that use Instagram to highlight their work and as a way to be discovered by some of the companies I mentioned above. 

As such, getting likes and followers on Instagram has become a business in itself. There are entire books and podcasts published to help users maximize their following and turn it into marketing gold. 

In my experience, the biggest piece of advice offered by the books, articles, podcasts and videos out there is the idea of "being consistent." 

Find your niche and stick with it. Be that star trails, sports, wildlife or landscapes. If you plan to venture outside of those things make a separate account and build up the following on both accounts. 

Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you how to become an Instagram star, I haven't figured that out. But, I do want to address this idea of making your Instagram feed into a pretty one-trick pony. 

For me, the magic of photography has always been its ability to share so many magical moments from the world with so many different subjects: people, landscapes and animals. Photography has never been one faceted and I've always felt that making myself one faceted would do nothing but hurt my photography. 

It's not uncommon to hear photographers complain about "shooting for Instagram." 

"Gotta get those hearts!" 

The problem is that shooting for Instagram often means focusing on pretty rather than interesting. Sunsets, landscapes and girls in bikinis will often litter the recommended page. 

While there's nothing inherently wrong with sunsets, landscapes and bikinis there's also nothing particularly meaningful about them either. Vary rarely do I see a picture of a sunset that I remember the next day. 

I doubt many photographers see a sunset picture that they remember, but one thing they do remember is the likes. 

Because of that, there are many amateur and semi-pro photographers that feel that the only way to get noticed is to simplify their work and cull it down to nothing but a single subject. 

I don't think I'll ever be an Instagram star but I find a lot of joy in the idea of expanding my craft. 

My Instagram feed features everything from landscapes, wildlife, sports, breaking news and the occasional selfie. I'm an Instagram Self-Help Guru's worst nightmare, something that I actually take a bit of pride in. 

To be clear, I'm not bashing photographers who specialize in certain topics. Scott Kelby for example is an amazing travel photographer. And I understand why he and people who specialize in other areas want to feature their best work. 

What I take issue with is the idea that photographers are essentially being given the advice to become one-dimensional. To specialize in certain areas so that they can get more likes and followers on Instagram. Not only do I feel that is a disservice to a learning photographer, I feel it's a disservice to the art of photography itself. 

Photography is about capturing the world, as you see it. Not capturing a single subject to show off to other people. 

But, who knows, maybe I'm just behind the times. 

Just Ask First: The Debate of Consent and Photography

WARNING: The following post contains some images that may not be appropriate for all readers.

Over the weekend, I came across an article on PetaPixel discussing the Ask First Campaign and how it had upset photographers at the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco, California.

The idea of the Ask First Campaign is something that I can get behind 100 percent. Just because someone may be wearing certain clothes and drinking in public doesn't give anyone the right to touch them in a sexual way. There should be no such thing as a "sure thing" when it comes to sexual consent.   

The problem that I have, and one that is expressed by the photographers in the article, are rather with the idea that consent needs to be obtained from a subject before a picture can be taken. 

Legally, there's no discussion to be had on this subject. In the United States, no consent is needed for a photographer to snap a picture of someone in public. 

A participant at a street fair, or a music festival has no legal expectation of privacy. 

 Rather, the argument falls more into box of ethics. What a photographer can do (legal) and what a photographer should do (ethics), is not always one and the same. 

View fullsize

A woman dances as a stranger looks on at the 2011 Muncie Gras festival in Muncie, Indiana. 

The creator of the Ask First Campaign, Maxine Holloway, gave several answers as to why photographers at the Folsom Street Fair should have to ask for permission from their subjects before snapping their picture, all of them however, I feel, missed the mark and in one case in particular equated photography to something much more sinister. I'll get to that in a minute, but first let me address some of Holloway's other answers. 

"Street photography has changed since the days of Gary Winnogrand taking photos on the streets of NYC in the 60’s. The internet, cell phone cameras, and facial recognition technology is a game changer when it comes to ethics and standards of street photography. The repercussions of someone being identified on the internet at the Folsom Street Fair versus being identified at a music festival, and where that image can travel, deserves a more nuanced conversation. As culture changes, the ‘how and why’ we capture people’s image is necessary discourse." 

Holloway is of course right in saying that street photography has changed. Cameras are smaller, less noticeable and everywhere; thanks to cellphones. However, this does not change a simple fact that has always been true of photography: a picture has always had the ability to travel anywhere. A photograph taken in 1955 by a professional photographer was just as likely to spread into the homes of the masses as one taken in 2016. The internet simply makes it easier. 

Rather than having to go to the local library to find copies of the San Francisco Chronicle to find photos from a recent street festival there, now I can visit their website. 

Holloway makes a distinction between those attending music festivals and the Folsom Street Fair, a BDSM festival, and says that the repercussions of the photos taken at the Folsom Street Fair deserve a more nuanced conversation, but to me that is a slippery slope. Repercussions are always a thing, no matter what event is being covered.

A person at a baseball game may wish not to have their photo taken because they don't want to get caught lying to their boss saying they were sick so they could get the day off for the game. A pretty girl may not want her photo taken at the local art walk because she thinks there are too many creepy people who could see the photo, but these dangers are not created by photography. They are created by the person putting themselves into the public space.

The baseball fan's boss could easily have tickets to the game as well and see our hapless hero on the big screen. A sexual deviant could very likely walk by our attractive heroine as they both examine a painting from a local artist. It is not the photographer's job to act as a mitigator of risk. 

View fullsize

A young couple embraces during the Summer Fest in Evansville, Indiana. 

This is a problem that can be solved mostly by simple communication. Most people, in my experience, don't seem to care that they're being photographed at a large public event, and if they do, most photographers I know, including myself, will make the concession of not using a picture if a person simply requests it. 

However, Holloway goes one step further with her statements (emphasis added): 

"The 'legal right' right to photograph someone in public is irrelevant. One only has to look to the recent Brock Turner Case to understand that the law does not always allocate what is right, just, or consensual...The Ask First Campaign is also addressing the fact that nowadays everyone has a camera in their hands. At events like the Folsom Street Fair, people are using cameras in offending ways: SLR’s and cell phones are repeatedly forced into people’s personal space when taking “up-skirt” photos and snapping close-up pictures of people’s breasts. These three things are not separate, and are all indicative of people believing they are owed or have the right to someone's body. This is eerily similar to how our society excuses sexual violence and rape culture at large..."

Hold up. What?

Here Holloway makes a direct and specific comparison between candid street photography and rape. Let's get this out of the way, no photographer should be doing things like attempting to get an up-skirt shot, or pushing a camera into someone's space just to get a picture of a breast. And while that may rise to the level of sexual assault depending on the situation, and I will defend no one doing such actions, this is not rape. 

The idea of comparing a person doing street photography at a public event to a rapist such as Brock Turner simply because they do not ask for the subjects consent is absurd. Sexual violence and rape is not something that can simply be walked into. Those committing sexual violence force themselves onto their victims, compared to a photographer who observes an event or a moment. 

No one is forcing anyone to attend these events. No one is telling them what to wear or how to act. In essence, they are exposing themselves and forcing themselves onto the world at large. What's the difference between thousands of people seeing them in person compared to thousands of people seeing them on the internet? Posterity. Many people are fine acting "the fool" until they realize someone might be keeping a record of it. Suddenly, things change. It's no fun being under the magnifying glass. Going back to my earlier point, it is not the photographer's job to secure a person's ego and protect them from themselves. 

Since Holloway is concerned with social media, I would ask her why we do not see campaigns to call for the request of consent to re-tweet someone's racist or hateful tweets, or to post their Facebook diatribe against women, or whoever. These moments, when captured can also cause irrevocable damage to a person's image. Just look at the Justine Sacco incident. However, I see no calls for Holloway to ask permission before retweeting someone's opinion on this matter, positive though it is. 

As for possible fears of what a photographer may do once they get home with an image, no amount of consent can affect that. There's nothing stopping a photographer from asking for consent only to turn around and photoshop that image onto a poster into something terrible to then post all over the internet. But, these are the risks one takes when entering into a public place. 

View fullsize

A woman flashes the crowd as she rides a mechanical bull at Muncie Gras in Muncie, Indiana. 

I am not attacking the Ask First Campaign. For years I have railed about the amount of sexual violence on college campuses, and I've had my blood boil many times while reading about how sexual assault victims were sidelined in their attempt at justice because those in law enforcement or in some type of power fell prey to the idea of "they had it coming." 

The new Netflix documentary Audrie and Daisy, the Jameis Winston incident, and an entire book by Jon Krakauer is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to showing that rape and sexual violence is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. 

No, what bothers me about this is the desire to curtail people's rights for the comfort of people who are not having any of their own rights violated. Contrary to Ms. Holloway beliefs, the legal rights of photographers is not "irrelevant." And Brock Turner does not make a good comparison. Turner violated a young woman's rights, in the worst kind of way, and then found himself a beneficiary of a judge who did not properly carry out the law. A photographer taking candid photos in a public place violates no rights and breaks no laws.

The arena of public spectacle is not meant to be closed off to those you may deem unworthy. Once you enter into it, that means you expose yourself to the entirety of the world. If you do not wish to be seen in specific clothes, or acting in specific ways, or attending certain events, the only sure way to do so is to not wear those clothes, act that way, or attend that event. 

Again, protecting you from yourself is not a photographer's job.