Election Night Dyptychs (view this story)

6 comments - Login to comment

Rep: 50
Michael Lloyd Nov. 12, 2010, 7:25 p.m. permalink

You guys ought to get the Pulitzer just for producing so much on election day. A mountain of print stills, I imagine, a daily video and Hipstamatic iPhone features--that's world-class multitasking.

This piece reminds me a lot of Stephen Crowley's election diptychs from the 2008 campaign. What made his piece so strong was that he had covered the campaign for months, not hours. The irony or juxtaposition or "third effect" of the diptych is an editing/storytelling process in itself. I love your idea and I loved Crowley's, but many of your pairs didn't jump out at me as particularly effective. But for even attempting it on top of everything else is admirable.

Wired magazine recently reported on a study that showed multi-taskers actually don't do a very good job at any of the several things they do. I try to tell my editors that at every opportunity.

Rep: 20
Will Yurman Nov. 12, 2010, 8:14 p.m. permalink

Hey Michael,
Thanks for the thoughts. I pretty much agree with you on all counts - especially the Pulitzer of course.

You're right that having to produce so much quantity affected the quality all down the road -videos, stills and the dyptychs would have all been better if we could have focused on them. But it's just not the reality in which we live, sadly.

I also thought the dyptychs lacked some synergy in the pairings - Crowley's stuff was great.

But you never answered the question!  Was it worth it?? :).
For us it was by far the most fun of the night. But given the limitations of the work, was it worth it for you as a viewer/listener?

Rep: 141
Colin Mulvany Nov. 14, 2010, 8:23 p.m. permalink

i say it was worth it! I watched to the end--because I wanted to. This was a great out-of-the box creative execution of an idea. I loved watching something visually different, yet it is still a story that gave me, the  viewer, information  I could use. The candidate narrative is well edited and adds a layer of unifying info the photos alone could not convey. Together, the audio and photos go together like a PB&J sandwich--to make a bad analogy:)  

I find it interesting too, that as more still photographers experiment with phone photography, that we seem give ourselves the leeway to add filter effects to the photos, but not so if they were shot with a big DSLR and processed in Photoshop.  Anyone else want to weigh in on this? I'm not saying it is wrong, it's just an observation. 

Rep: 20
Will Yurman Nov. 14, 2010, 8:31 p.m. permalink

Thanks Colin.  And thanks for watching to the end!

I did think about the whole filter/toning issue - without a clear answer beyond that these are clearly not straight documentary images - so it felt ok to us.  Also, the app we're using applies the 'look' directly to the file. Almost as if we chose a particular film for its look. There is no post production beyond what the app did.  Kind of splitting hairs...but, well, what the heck.

Rep: 141
Colin Mulvany Nov. 14, 2010, 8:40 p.m. permalink

I personally like the look Will. I have an iPhone 3gs,, yet i never think to use it in my daily news photography. Your piece inspires me to try it. Thanks!

Rep: 4
Don Himsel Nov. 15, 2010, 7:10 a.m. permalink

What I find particularly interesting is the application of the iPhone.  Others use it, sure.  It all looks good here- content, packaging, etc., and is good value-added visual journalism.

Login to comment

Likes2 likes

You must be logged in to like this story

Others who like this