I'm sure someone is going to point out to me that we've discussed this before, and yeah, we probably have, but the gray and white in my hair is spreading and my memory is condensing... so I don't know where to find the thread if we already have one on this subject. I bring it up again because I have seen so many images that could fit nicely into a "photojournalism" category/gallery. The dictionary defines it as "The art or practice of communicating news by photographs... with little attempt at analysis or interpretation." I bring it up also because a number of Caedesians have expressed a desire to have a place for it on the site. The images on this site that I enjoy most are the ones that make me think, particularly those that make me try to place myself in someone else's shoes, to sense and feel what they are. Who, what, when, where, and how are the basic elements of news, of the telling of an event, be it tragedy, human interest, an event of scientific significance, and so on. I remember someone telling me that guidelines for this kind of category would be difficult to develop, but if we were to approach it in terms of news or magazine article images, I don't believe it would be that hard. As a child in the late 50's and early 60's, a test of willpower for me was to delay flipping to the last page in our latest issue of LIFE magazine, where there was a last, unique photo printed. One classic I remember was a kneeling man, troweling fresh concrete in a sidewalk, had stopped his work and was looking up at a toddler who was standing smack in the middle of the concrete he had just steel-finished. The kid had a pinched, "Are you mad at me?" look on his face. I also remember the photo in LIFE of John-John Kennedy saluting as his father's casket and carriage rolled by. Photojournalism tells a story, or rather, starts a story and leaves us to fill in the rest. I think this could work. I think this could be fun. And yes, it's Geri's site and he can say "pphhhhttttttt" if he wants. He has every right to do so and, if he does, I support his decision. But if you're interested in this idea, sound off and let Geri know how you feel and think. Your turn...

-Nik

I think this is not only a very sound idea, but in fact means sanctioning what exists without specific name or separate category. Journalistic photography could make a relatively broad category in no way inferior in artistic or aesthetic terms, just different [or more general] in subject. I would love to know what other friends think about it. Let us do some brainstorming in this respect. Thanks, dear Nik, for the idea.
SAM and of course SAAB

Anyone can make a picture. It takes skill to make a photo where you get to put yourself in the situation or just to be an observer. Photojournalists can say lots with one photo. Maybe we should give it a try.

I too think it would be great to have a Photojournalism gallery but recalling past discussions where someone suggested a new gallery I believe there has to be enough images to warrant one.

I have been in support of this new category for years...and I'm very glad that Nik broached the question again. That said, I've been slow to comment (and will be slow to post on it) because I'm in the middle of cataract surgery, and have nothing suitable "in the bag" at this time.
One thing I think should be discussed is guidelines for such photographs...we don't want it to degenerate into "pin-ups" (to use an old-fashioned term). On the other hand, I don't think we want this site to become uncomfortable to peruse if there is a strong chance we will encounter a picture of something like torture, for example. In order to define better what we do NOT want, it is necessary to define what we DO want. "Pictures that tell a story" is obvious, but would still include someone being executed in front of a firing squad. So, then, what kind of story? Perhaps my limits are too restrictive for others. I await other contributions to this discussion thread with great interest.
Oh...and my argument for having a Journalistic category at all is something I mentioned to Nik a week or so ago... "People are always interested in other people."

Torture is something I would definitely find offensive—you'll never find me watching one of the "Saw" movies—or anything that exploits people deliberately put under great stress. Today, that seems to be increasingly popular to a misguided portion of the population ("reality" TV shows are nudging into this sort of exploitation). Don't get me wrong, I'm not a "political correctness" advocate (believing it's making this country weak), but one has to draw the line with certain things. While events and conditions like poverty, natural disasters, accidents (of a not-too-graphic nature) and strong emotions may ride the fence of acceptance, they are still viable for photojournalism candidacy. -Nik

For what it's worth, the site already has rules regarding content. They fall in line with TV broadcast standards if I remember correctly. So, no violence, nudity, etc should be a given.

Also, I think the old "no snapshots" rule is critical here. Just because it happened, doesn't make it photo-worthy. The image should be post-worthy, regardless of topic, theme, etc. I would ask the the mods, and *caedes of course, take this into consideration.

yea further push the photos

yea further push the photos ,more wacked out snapshots could draw a crowd.good idea