I was looking for inspiration (multimedia inspiration, anyway) tonight as I edited sound bites for my final project. I found plenty in an audio slide show about Children's Hospital on washingtonpost.com. A few things struck me about the piece:
1. Both the beginning and end of the slide show were smooth. It started with about five seconds of natural sound inside the hospital, then moved seamlessly into the first sound bite, a piece of an interview with the chief of surgery.
The last 20 seconds or so brought the slide show to a natural close. The chief of surgery's voice was back, talking about saying good-bye to the old unit. As he spoke, a photo showed a patient looking over his shoulder as he and his mother waited for the elevator, presumably to leave the hospital.
2. There were a couple of segments at which the audio and photos matched perfectly. My favorite example was hearing a woman read from The Lion King while looking at a photo taken from an angle that let me look over her shoulder at the book and the tiny baby treated to story time.
3. The quality and variety of the photos-- vertical and horizontal; wide, medium and tight; and intense emotion. It seemed that each photo was more powerful than the one before it. And each added to the story.
At this point, I already have the raw material for my final project. Now I just have to edit it into the perfect audio slide show. I hope my work will bear at least a slight resemblance to the quality of the Children's Hospital piece.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
The Pope in the U.S.: Audio on Sites Big & Small
Pope Benedict XVI may have provided religious inspiration to Catholics during his recent visit to the United States, but he didn't stop there. He also seems to have inspired the news media...to use audio, that is.
I came across an interesting audio feature on nytimes.com: "Catholic Views, Catholic Voices," a collection of sound bytes from interviews with 25 Roman Catholics in five cities across the country. The feature shows an eclectic mix of opinions of Pope Benedict XVI himself and what the interviewees hoped he'd accomplish in his visit here. This is "man on the street" if I ever saw one.
Some of the interviews were conducted indoors, others outdoors -- think city street, birds chirping in the backyard, or just plain air. The second group was definitely more natural, while the indoor interviews seemed almost too formal. Each sound byte was accompanied by a head shot of the person speaking, which was a nice addition.
The only real problem I had with the piece was the case of a man who gave his interview in another language; his translator was a woman. Admittedly, it isn't too big a deal, but I have to wonder: Doesn't a company with the resources of The New York Times have at least one male translator?
Maryland Newsline, the University of Maryland's student-produced online newsmagazine, used audio in its reporting of the papal visit in a very different way. While The Times' piece was stand-alone audio, Maryland Newsline incorporated audio into its written story by linking to interview sound bytes from within the text.
This created an interesting layer to the story: After reading about a souvenir vendor at the Mass at Nationals Park, for example, I could hear him speak about what sales had been like that day. Although the recorded sound wasn't perfect, it worked well in the context of the article. It helped set the scene and gave me a taste of the vendor's personality without going on too long.
Whether it's a news site that's big or one that is small, audio can work for them all.
I came across an interesting audio feature on nytimes.com: "Catholic Views, Catholic Voices," a collection of sound bytes from interviews with 25 Roman Catholics in five cities across the country. The feature shows an eclectic mix of opinions of Pope Benedict XVI himself and what the interviewees hoped he'd accomplish in his visit here. This is "man on the street" if I ever saw one.
Some of the interviews were conducted indoors, others outdoors -- think city street, birds chirping in the backyard, or just plain air. The second group was definitely more natural, while the indoor interviews seemed almost too formal. Each sound byte was accompanied by a head shot of the person speaking, which was a nice addition.
The only real problem I had with the piece was the case of a man who gave his interview in another language; his translator was a woman. Admittedly, it isn't too big a deal, but I have to wonder: Doesn't a company with the resources of The New York Times have at least one male translator?
Maryland Newsline, the University of Maryland's student-produced online newsmagazine, used audio in its reporting of the papal visit in a very different way. While The Times' piece was stand-alone audio, Maryland Newsline incorporated audio into its written story by linking to interview sound bytes from within the text.
This created an interesting layer to the story: After reading about a souvenir vendor at the Mass at Nationals Park, for example, I could hear him speak about what sales had been like that day. Although the recorded sound wasn't perfect, it worked well in the context of the article. It helped set the scene and gave me a taste of the vendor's personality without going on too long.
Whether it's a news site that's big or one that is small, audio can work for them all.
Bringing it to Life
I fished around on washingtonpost.com for a good 20 minutes before choosing a story to bring to life with sound. The first article I saw was the piece on "the D.C. Madam" suicide. Not quite what I had in mind, so I kept looking. In the Post's religion section, I found an interesting story about a man who turned his auto body shop into a temporary Hindu temple. This one was ripe for audio, what with the "chanting devotees" mentioned in the story, but it also seemed ripe for photos. Once I saw an image of the elaborate alter the owner created, I didn't want to suggest that the story could be fully covered in audio.
After checking the politics section and some slide shows on the recent opening of the Newseum, I finally settled on an education story, "Time's Up on Multiple-Choice Test for College."
The article is about the decisions high school seniors face when choosing between various universities' offers of admission. It features James Watkins, a D.C. senior with a May 1 deadline to pick just one from among the eight colleges at which he was accepted.
An audio version of the story could begin with a few seconds of natural sound of students walking to class as the bells chime at an area university. The reporter could then say something to the effect of, "For the thousands of students walking to class on college campuses across the country, May 1 is just an ordinary day. But for many high school seniors, it's the day they must decide which college they'll attend in the fall. And for some, the decision is especially difficult. James Watkins of the District has been weighing the merits of eight different colleges at which he was accepted."
That could lead into a sound byte from an interview with Watkins. The reporter should "step in" to guide the story along where necessary, but as a listener, I don't want to hear too much from the reporter.
I'm more interested in what Watkins says about how he finally settled on Bates College in rural Maine, and what his mother (who was featured in the print story) says about the high value she placed on education as Watkins was growing up. I also want to hear a quick clip or two from Watkins' school adviser, who could provide an overall picture of the decision making process his students experience.
A nice addition: sound bytes from interviews with current college students discussing whether they made the right decision about which school to attend. Conducting these "man on the campus" interviews outdoors would bring a sense of natural space to the piece.
The presence of a reporter in an audio story like this one is important to set the scene, guide the listener through the piece, and tie it together at the end. But the strength of the audio story lies in the reporter's ability to capture (and edit!) articulate, to-the-point interview clips and interesting natural sound.
After checking the politics section and some slide shows on the recent opening of the Newseum, I finally settled on an education story, "Time's Up on Multiple-Choice Test for College."
The article is about the decisions high school seniors face when choosing between various universities' offers of admission. It features James Watkins, a D.C. senior with a May 1 deadline to pick just one from among the eight colleges at which he was accepted.
An audio version of the story could begin with a few seconds of natural sound of students walking to class as the bells chime at an area university. The reporter could then say something to the effect of, "For the thousands of students walking to class on college campuses across the country, May 1 is just an ordinary day. But for many high school seniors, it's the day they must decide which college they'll attend in the fall. And for some, the decision is especially difficult. James Watkins of the District has been weighing the merits of eight different colleges at which he was accepted."
That could lead into a sound byte from an interview with Watkins. The reporter should "step in" to guide the story along where necessary, but as a listener, I don't want to hear too much from the reporter.
I'm more interested in what Watkins says about how he finally settled on Bates College in rural Maine, and what his mother (who was featured in the print story) says about the high value she placed on education as Watkins was growing up. I also want to hear a quick clip or two from Watkins' school adviser, who could provide an overall picture of the decision making process his students experience.
A nice addition: sound bytes from interviews with current college students discussing whether they made the right decision about which school to attend. Conducting these "man on the campus" interviews outdoors would bring a sense of natural space to the piece.
The presence of a reporter in an audio story like this one is important to set the scene, guide the listener through the piece, and tie it together at the end. But the strength of the audio story lies in the reporter's ability to capture (and edit!) articulate, to-the-point interview clips and interesting natural sound.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
An Exercise in Listening
I listened to four reports from today's "All Things Considered" podcast on npr.org. I was surprised at how different they were from what I had expected.
After listening to the examples in class that featured piano movers and a ballgame beer seller, I had expected to hear relatively long interview clips and lots of scene-setting natural sound. I was waiting for the audio pieces that would paint the picture for me, make the story come to life. But those pieces never really came.
Instead, the reports were heavy on anchors' explanations and light on interviews and natural sound--the portions of an audio report I consider most interesting. For example, in a business story called "From Clunker to Cruiser, Ford Posts Quarterly Profit" (2:56), the anchors spoke almost the entire time, pausing briefly every now and then for quick interview sound bytes or the slightest amount of natural sound. But even the natural sound that was used didn't add significantly to the report: When the anchor mentioned trucks, the sound of passing cars played in the background. Similar sound played when the anchor mentioned another type of car.
Another business story I heard, "A Tale of Two Corporate Trends in Today’s Economy" (3:12), was even less like the examples we heard in class. After a brief introduction to the topic, the anchor welcomes his guest and proceeded to interview him for the duration of the report. I would be glad to hear longer portions of an interview, but the interview-in-its-entirety approach seemed less polished than a package combining anchors' reporting, interviews, and natural sound.
"Chairman Mao: An Unlikely Business Guru" (6:13) did a better job of using the different elements of audio reporting. After a short introduction, the anchor moved to a reporter on the scene in China. The background street noise while the reporter was speaking and the sounds of a cheering, chanting crowd helped paint that picture I was waiting to see.
After listening to these three reports, I began to think I was just choosing the wrong type of report. These had all been serious stories that don't necessarily scream "audio." So for the fourth report, I selected a story I thought I could expect to be driven by natural sound: "What Did I Do with My Violin?" (3:48).
But I was disappointed again. The report centered on the anchor interviewing a psychotherapist about the tendency of musicians to lose their instruments. And that nice natural sound I was expecting? It didn't show up until the last few seconds of the report.
Listening to these reports underscored the importance of natural sound in making a story come alive for a radio audience. Like the super-tight shot in still photography and the carefully placed details in a print article, capturing and using good natural sound seems to be the key to producing a compelling audio package.
After listening to the examples in class that featured piano movers and a ballgame beer seller, I had expected to hear relatively long interview clips and lots of scene-setting natural sound. I was waiting for the audio pieces that would paint the picture for me, make the story come to life. But those pieces never really came.
Instead, the reports were heavy on anchors' explanations and light on interviews and natural sound--the portions of an audio report I consider most interesting. For example, in a business story called "From Clunker to Cruiser, Ford Posts Quarterly Profit" (2:56), the anchors spoke almost the entire time, pausing briefly every now and then for quick interview sound bytes or the slightest amount of natural sound. But even the natural sound that was used didn't add significantly to the report: When the anchor mentioned trucks, the sound of passing cars played in the background. Similar sound played when the anchor mentioned another type of car.
Another business story I heard, "A Tale of Two Corporate Trends in Today’s Economy" (3:12), was even less like the examples we heard in class. After a brief introduction to the topic, the anchor welcomes his guest and proceeded to interview him for the duration of the report. I would be glad to hear longer portions of an interview, but the interview-in-its-entirety approach seemed less polished than a package combining anchors' reporting, interviews, and natural sound.
"Chairman Mao: An Unlikely Business Guru" (6:13) did a better job of using the different elements of audio reporting. After a short introduction, the anchor moved to a reporter on the scene in China. The background street noise while the reporter was speaking and the sounds of a cheering, chanting crowd helped paint that picture I was waiting to see.
After listening to these three reports, I began to think I was just choosing the wrong type of report. These had all been serious stories that don't necessarily scream "audio." So for the fourth report, I selected a story I thought I could expect to be driven by natural sound: "What Did I Do with My Violin?" (3:48).
But I was disappointed again. The report centered on the anchor interviewing a psychotherapist about the tendency of musicians to lose their instruments. And that nice natural sound I was expecting? It didn't show up until the last few seconds of the report.
Listening to these reports underscored the importance of natural sound in making a story come alive for a radio audience. Like the super-tight shot in still photography and the carefully placed details in a print article, capturing and using good natural sound seems to be the key to producing a compelling audio package.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Kids will be Kids
In the course of studying hundreds of images in and out of class over the last few weeks, I noticed that photos of children seem to be especially interesting.
Sure, anyone can have a funny expression on his face, but kids tend to have the funniest expressions. And anyone has the potential to be good interview material, but kids often seem more natural on video than even the most at-ease adults. So when I wanted a back-up plan for my final project, I went to a local elementary school.
My starting point? Lots of kids in matching uniforms at a special two-hour program in the middle of the school day. There would even be a birthday cake at the end of the program for the kid turning seven to share with his classmates. I was pumped.
I was counting on the kids being cute and funny and interacting with each other naturally.
What I didn't count on were the two or three kids whose greatest desire, it seemed, was to be caught on camera. They waved, they threw themselves in front of the screen, they made faces. And they ruined a lot of otherwise perfectly good footage.
So my list of things to keep in mind while filming got a bit longer: Hold the camera steady, use backgrounds that add to the story, shoot sequences of wide, medium and tight shots...and avoid camera-hungry kids.
Sure, anyone can have a funny expression on his face, but kids tend to have the funniest expressions. And anyone has the potential to be good interview material, but kids often seem more natural on video than even the most at-ease adults. So when I wanted a back-up plan for my final project, I went to a local elementary school.
My starting point? Lots of kids in matching uniforms at a special two-hour program in the middle of the school day. There would even be a birthday cake at the end of the program for the kid turning seven to share with his classmates. I was pumped.
I was counting on the kids being cute and funny and interacting with each other naturally.
What I didn't count on were the two or three kids whose greatest desire, it seemed, was to be caught on camera. They waved, they threw themselves in front of the screen, they made faces. And they ruined a lot of otherwise perfectly good footage.
So my list of things to keep in mind while filming got a bit longer: Hold the camera steady, use backgrounds that add to the story, shoot sequences of wide, medium and tight shots...and avoid camera-hungry kids.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
At Least You'll Make Better Home Videos...
When we completed the video portion of our non-print media course a few weeks ago, Nina said that even if we never used our new skills professionally, we'd at least be able to make better home videos.
It's too early to say whether I'll use my early video journalism experiences in my career, but I'm definitely approaching home videos in a more sophisticated way.
Over the last week or so, my mother has been putting together a digital slide show with photos of just about every family member in our family tree (and there are a lot of leaves on our tree). After experimenting with different audios over the still shots, she realized that with the right timing, she could create a nice effect by matching certain photos with certain bits of music.
And so it came to be that a close-up of my grandma pops up on the screen to the words "then I saw her face" from The Monkees' "I'm a Believer." And a few seconds later, which words from that song are playing when my grandparents' wedding photo comes up? "I'm in love," of course.
Though I can't take credit for what is to certainly be a savvier home video, at least I appreciate the way it's being created.
And maybe when it's time for the next family slide show project, I'll take a more active role in the production.
It's too early to say whether I'll use my early video journalism experiences in my career, but I'm definitely approaching home videos in a more sophisticated way.
Over the last week or so, my mother has been putting together a digital slide show with photos of just about every family member in our family tree (and there are a lot of leaves on our tree). After experimenting with different audios over the still shots, she realized that with the right timing, she could create a nice effect by matching certain photos with certain bits of music.
And so it came to be that a close-up of my grandma pops up on the screen to the words "then I saw her face" from The Monkees' "I'm a Believer." And a few seconds later, which words from that song are playing when my grandparents' wedding photo comes up? "I'm in love," of course.
Though I can't take credit for what is to certainly be a savvier home video, at least I appreciate the way it's being created.
And maybe when it's time for the next family slide show project, I'll take a more active role in the production.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Of Portraits & Profiles
This week I discovered my favorite type of photography: portraits.
I like the clear objective in taking a portrait. You find what stands out about a person, how they spend their time, what they absolutely love to do. Then you find a way to show them in that light.
As much as I like the clarity, though, I also like the flexibility that comes with taking portraits. The subject can be looking at the camera or looking in another direction. He can be smiling, or serious, or moody. You want to photograph only their hands? Okay, go for it. Just their feet? No problem.
I also find it interesting that portraits, unlike other types of photographs, can be posed and still turn out well. Over the past few weeks, as I hunted for worthwhile photos on and off campus, I found myself almost wishing I could just pose a couple of people to capture what I had in mind. Fortunately, the temptation wasn't all that great. After all, a posed photo is a posed photo. It doesn't look good-- it looks stupid.
But a posed portrait can look great.
In my print classes and on assignment as a freelance reporter, I've particularly enjoyed writing profiles. Basically, then, all I need is to write a strong profile and photograph a creative portrait to go with it, and I'm one happy camper.
I like the clear objective in taking a portrait. You find what stands out about a person, how they spend their time, what they absolutely love to do. Then you find a way to show them in that light.
As much as I like the clarity, though, I also like the flexibility that comes with taking portraits. The subject can be looking at the camera or looking in another direction. He can be smiling, or serious, or moody. You want to photograph only their hands? Okay, go for it. Just their feet? No problem.
I also find it interesting that portraits, unlike other types of photographs, can be posed and still turn out well. Over the past few weeks, as I hunted for worthwhile photos on and off campus, I found myself almost wishing I could just pose a couple of people to capture what I had in mind. Fortunately, the temptation wasn't all that great. After all, a posed photo is a posed photo. It doesn't look good-- it looks stupid.
But a posed portrait can look great.
In my print classes and on assignment as a freelance reporter, I've particularly enjoyed writing profiles. Basically, then, all I need is to write a strong profile and photograph a creative portrait to go with it, and I'm one happy camper.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
I've Already Got a Favorite
When the National Cherry Blossom Festival begins on Saturday, dozens of photographers will find their way to the Tidal Basin to capture it on camera. There will be tourists, eager for the perfect Washington-in-the-spring shot. And there will be professionals, serious about photographing the blossoms and their visitors.
Hundreds--if not thousands--of images will be made before the festival ends on April 13, but I've already found my favorite cherry blossom photo. (It's the ninth in the Washington Post's slide show from the 2006 festival:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/070305/GAL-07Mar05-67023/index.html.)
For me, it was love at first sight. Really, what could make a sweeter cherry blossom photo than a pair of little girls in pink flowery dresses reaching out to touch the pink flowers by the water? Read the caption, and it gets even better: The girls are 3-year-old twins.
I love that they're so absorbed in touching the blossoms that they don't notice they're being photographed, and I love that the Post's Arianne Starnes made the image with the girls on the right side of the frame instead of the center. I'm not quite sure what the photo's subject is--the girls or the cherry blossoms--and I like the fact that it could be either, or maybe both.
I only wish I took it myself.
Hundreds--if not thousands--of images will be made before the festival ends on April 13, but I've already found my favorite cherry blossom photo. (It's the ninth in the Washington Post's slide show from the 2006 festival:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/070305/GAL-07Mar05-67023/index.html.)
For me, it was love at first sight. Really, what could make a sweeter cherry blossom photo than a pair of little girls in pink flowery dresses reaching out to touch the pink flowers by the water? Read the caption, and it gets even better: The girls are 3-year-old twins.
I love that they're so absorbed in touching the blossoms that they don't notice they're being photographed, and I love that the Post's Arianne Starnes made the image with the girls on the right side of the frame instead of the center. I'm not quite sure what the photo's subject is--the girls or the cherry blossoms--and I like the fact that it could be either, or maybe both.
I only wish I took it myself.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Looking Through That Lens
I tried to see my life through a camera lens this week.
My typical day includes driving to and from campus, working in the office of a children's magazine, and eating dinner with my parents and younger siblings. These things seem so terribly ordinary that I wondered if there was any potential for a truly good photograph.
I thought that if I could get past holding the camera at eye-level and try some unusual angles, I might make a worthwhile image. So I experimented...and found that some photos I took were okay, some were bad, and some were just weird.
Next, I tried photographing events that were a bit out of the ordinary: a friend's wedding and the high school play I attended this week. There was plenty of material at the wedding, but there were also plenty of barriers to good photography. For one thing, the professional photographers got all the good spots. There was also the problem of working around so many wedding guests-- someone seemed to cross in front of me at all the wrong moments.
The play also presented special challenges. There was awful lighting in the area we waited in before entering the auditorium, and I couldn't get nearly as close as I would have liked to the stage without disturbing the performance.
Is it better to look for creative angles in an ordinary situation, or to photograph things that are naturally exciting?
I'm still not sure.
My typical day includes driving to and from campus, working in the office of a children's magazine, and eating dinner with my parents and younger siblings. These things seem so terribly ordinary that I wondered if there was any potential for a truly good photograph.
I thought that if I could get past holding the camera at eye-level and try some unusual angles, I might make a worthwhile image. So I experimented...and found that some photos I took were okay, some were bad, and some were just weird.
Next, I tried photographing events that were a bit out of the ordinary: a friend's wedding and the high school play I attended this week. There was plenty of material at the wedding, but there were also plenty of barriers to good photography. For one thing, the professional photographers got all the good spots. There was also the problem of working around so many wedding guests-- someone seemed to cross in front of me at all the wrong moments.
The play also presented special challenges. There was awful lighting in the area we waited in before entering the auditorium, and I couldn't get nearly as close as I would have liked to the stage without disturbing the performance.
Is it better to look for creative angles in an ordinary situation, or to photograph things that are naturally exciting?
I'm still not sure.
A Compelling Story? It's a Start.
"High School Confidential," a documentary that tells a dozen teenage girls' stories, premiered this week on We TV. The stories are by no means boring-- one girl talks about her anorexia, another about her cousin's death, a third about her experiences fighting a brain tumor. You'd think material like that would make for a pretty compelling show.
But in the Washington Post's review, Laura Sessions Stepp writes that "they [the girls] don't engage us, and that's not their fault. Their stories don't move us largely because of how they were shot and edited."
I wouldn't have understood this in quite the same way had I read the review a few weeks ago. But after beginning to study video journalism and filming a few short videos of my own, I know that it's possible to have a strong story but a disappointing video.
In the print world, a powerful quote is pretty much all you need. It doesn't matter whether the person had a funny look on her face when she said it, it doesn't matter if the lighting was poor during the interview, and it certainly doesn't matter if your hand wasn't perfectly steady while she was speaking.
But that just isn't the case with video.
When you produce a video, you're looking at the whole picture. Yes, you want those strong quotes. But you also want smooth footage. You want decent weather, so a serious story doesn't become ridiculous because the interview subject is getting drenched by the rain. You don't want the roaring of fire engines driving or the beeping of car horns or just about any other distraction in the background.
The extra challenges make video journalism that much harder to get a handle on. But they also make it that much more rewarding when you've done a good job.
But in the Washington Post's review, Laura Sessions Stepp writes that "they [the girls] don't engage us, and that's not their fault. Their stories don't move us largely because of how they were shot and edited."
I wouldn't have understood this in quite the same way had I read the review a few weeks ago. But after beginning to study video journalism and filming a few short videos of my own, I know that it's possible to have a strong story but a disappointing video.
In the print world, a powerful quote is pretty much all you need. It doesn't matter whether the person had a funny look on her face when she said it, it doesn't matter if the lighting was poor during the interview, and it certainly doesn't matter if your hand wasn't perfectly steady while she was speaking.
But that just isn't the case with video.
When you produce a video, you're looking at the whole picture. Yes, you want those strong quotes. But you also want smooth footage. You want decent weather, so a serious story doesn't become ridiculous because the interview subject is getting drenched by the rain. You don't want the roaring of fire engines driving or the beeping of car horns or just about any other distraction in the background.
The extra challenges make video journalism that much harder to get a handle on. But they also make it that much more rewarding when you've done a good job.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Re-learning the Interview
I first learned how to conduct an interview in JOUR 320, an intense reporting and writing course that had me popping out weekly news stories and 10 published clips. I got used to cold-calling sources and asking lots of questions-- some more provocative, some less so. I learned to type people's comments while simultaneously listening, responding, and thinking of follow-up questions.
I spent hours speaking with a Brooklyn sculptor about her life's work. I interviewed the mayor and all four members of the Rockville City Council about proposed changes to the city's trash pick-up. I talked to senior advocates about pending legislation in Maryland and Virginia.
I did about 75 interviews that semester, and by the time finals rolled around, I felt pretty comfortable talking to people I didn't know about subjects I wasn't familiar with.
But I wasn't thinking visually.
Now, a few weeks into the college's Non-Print Media course, I'm re-learning what I thought I already knew about journalism: how to do an interview.
Capturing an interview for a video means that I have to film the subject in the correct place on the camera screen. Instead of paying attention to how I respond to someone's comments, I now remind myself to keep quiet-- I don't want my "mmm-hmm"s and "really?"s to clutter the footage. I also have to concentrate on keeping a steady hand on the camera so viewers don't get motion sickness from a shaky video.
There's more pressure doing on-camera interviews. As a strictly print reporter, I always knew I could call a source back if I had additional questions. But if I'm covering a live event via video, what I get is what I get. Missed a shot? Too bad-- it's gone.
After producing another 70 stories on video, I hope I'll reach the same level of comfort I have in the print medium.
At that point, it'll probably be time to try my hand at photojournalism.
I spent hours speaking with a Brooklyn sculptor about her life's work. I interviewed the mayor and all four members of the Rockville City Council about proposed changes to the city's trash pick-up. I talked to senior advocates about pending legislation in Maryland and Virginia.
I did about 75 interviews that semester, and by the time finals rolled around, I felt pretty comfortable talking to people I didn't know about subjects I wasn't familiar with.
But I wasn't thinking visually.
Now, a few weeks into the college's Non-Print Media course, I'm re-learning what I thought I already knew about journalism: how to do an interview.
Capturing an interview for a video means that I have to film the subject in the correct place on the camera screen. Instead of paying attention to how I respond to someone's comments, I now remind myself to keep quiet-- I don't want my "mmm-hmm"s and "really?"s to clutter the footage. I also have to concentrate on keeping a steady hand on the camera so viewers don't get motion sickness from a shaky video.
There's more pressure doing on-camera interviews. As a strictly print reporter, I always knew I could call a source back if I had additional questions. But if I'm covering a live event via video, what I get is what I get. Missed a shot? Too bad-- it's gone.
After producing another 70 stories on video, I hope I'll reach the same level of comfort I have in the print medium.
At that point, it'll probably be time to try my hand at photojournalism.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
In Pursuit of an Interview
I love going to Dunkin' Donuts. There's something about opening that door and walking into a place full of fresh donut-y smells that never ceases to excite me. So when it came time for the man-on-the-street interview assignment, I knew where I wanted to go for my interview.
I planned to talk to one of the employees at an area Dunkin' Donuts about what it's like to work there. Have they been serving the same guy the same type of donut and coffee every day for a decade? Do the employees eat bagels for lunch every day? And do they really throw out all those donuts just before closing time?
I thought I'd have a better chance of getting the interview if I went when the store wasn’t busy. But there's "not busy," and there's "really, really not busy." When I showed up shortly before 10 p.m. on Saturday night, there was only one woman behind the counter.
She was camera-shy.
And she didn’t speak much English.
I was faced with the same problem Sunday afternoon when I took my Flip camera to a Baskin-Robbins: One woman behind the counter, and not much English.
I had even less luck at the grocery next door. No language barrier, but the man I interviewed answered most of my questions in about three words.
I finally got my interview just two minutes from my house, standing outside a pizza restaurant in the shopping center I've visited five times this week alone.
I'm convinced that when it comes to catching an interview, close to home is best.
I planned to talk to one of the employees at an area Dunkin' Donuts about what it's like to work there. Have they been serving the same guy the same type of donut and coffee every day for a decade? Do the employees eat bagels for lunch every day? And do they really throw out all those donuts just before closing time?
I thought I'd have a better chance of getting the interview if I went when the store wasn’t busy. But there's "not busy," and there's "really, really not busy." When I showed up shortly before 10 p.m. on Saturday night, there was only one woman behind the counter.
She was camera-shy.
And she didn’t speak much English.
I was faced with the same problem Sunday afternoon when I took my Flip camera to a Baskin-Robbins: One woman behind the counter, and not much English.
I had even less luck at the grocery next door. No language barrier, but the man I interviewed answered most of my questions in about three words.
I finally got my interview just two minutes from my house, standing outside a pizza restaurant in the shopping center I've visited five times this week alone.
I'm convinced that when it comes to catching an interview, close to home is best.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Learning from the Pros
I attended the judging for the White House News Photographers Association Eyes of History contest on Sunday. I was surprised by a lot of what I saw there, not by the video entries as much as by the judges' reactions to the entries.
One criterion the judges mentioned in their final selection of contest winners was whether particular entries could be considered "enough of a challenge".
This seemed to be the reason the "Sputnik" entry did not place at all in the short-form category; the judges liked it but decided that its use of historical video footage made it "less challenging." They said the same of "A Wave of Uncertainty," a long-form entry about Cuban immigration. The issue came up a third time with regard to "The Joberts," a long-form entry the judges called "seamless" and praised for its wildlife footage, but ultimately said was "not challenging". "Brazil Ethanol," on the other hand, was called "way more challenging" than "Sputnik," and it placed third in the short-form category.
Another issue the judges dealt with was just how gruesome video footage could be before it crossed the line.
The long-form entry "Surgical Fires," for example, showed three women whose faces had been burned during surgery. The gruesome nature of the footage seemed to be part of the reason that video did not place in the contest.
Another long-form entry, "Evidence of My Existence," also contained upsetting footage. The video is a photojournalist’s story of his experiences working in various dangerous situations, and the footage was at some points so disturbing that I no longer wanted to watch.
The judges, though, decided it reflected the reality of the harsh conditions without "overdoing it". The judges also mentioned that the video had good pacing; one commented that the story "drew me in."
"Evidence of My Existence" was given an Award of Excellence.
I guess showing gross footage isn't always a bad thing.
One criterion the judges mentioned in their final selection of contest winners was whether particular entries could be considered "enough of a challenge".
This seemed to be the reason the "Sputnik" entry did not place at all in the short-form category; the judges liked it but decided that its use of historical video footage made it "less challenging." They said the same of "A Wave of Uncertainty," a long-form entry about Cuban immigration. The issue came up a third time with regard to "The Joberts," a long-form entry the judges called "seamless" and praised for its wildlife footage, but ultimately said was "not challenging". "Brazil Ethanol," on the other hand, was called "way more challenging" than "Sputnik," and it placed third in the short-form category.
Another issue the judges dealt with was just how gruesome video footage could be before it crossed the line.
The long-form entry "Surgical Fires," for example, showed three women whose faces had been burned during surgery. The gruesome nature of the footage seemed to be part of the reason that video did not place in the contest.
Another long-form entry, "Evidence of My Existence," also contained upsetting footage. The video is a photojournalist’s story of his experiences working in various dangerous situations, and the footage was at some points so disturbing that I no longer wanted to watch.
The judges, though, decided it reflected the reality of the harsh conditions without "overdoing it". The judges also mentioned that the video had good pacing; one commented that the story "drew me in."
"Evidence of My Existence" was given an Award of Excellence.
I guess showing gross footage isn't always a bad thing.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Veggie Burgers Suit Me Just Fine
I grew up in a household where eating healthy food was a priority. No candy. No gum. No chips. We don't keep sugar in the house because we don't bake. If you want bread, it's going to have to be whole wheat. Rice? You bet it'll be brown. And we’re vegetarians, too.
I have probably been asked more often about my vegetarian diet than about anything else. Many people seem to have a hard time envisioning their meals without meat. At some point I started noticing a pattern in the reactions of people who had just discovered I am a vegetarian. It goes something like this:
"You're a vegetarian? What do you eat?"
"Oh, you know. Pasta…vegetables…soups. Everything you eat, just no meat."
(Dumbfounded silence follows.)
But when a child becomes an adult, he dictates his own diet. One of my brothers took advantage of this by throwing a “meat party” on his eighteenth birthday. He and a group of friends went to a local restaurant for dinner, and one of them used his digital camera to take a video of him eating shawarma and chicken-matzo ball soup for the first time.
I chose not to follow him on The Meat Path.
I found myself on the brink of adulthood while on a study abroad program in Jerusalem, 5,901 miles from my parents. Even with the freedom that came from being so far away, I stuck with my veggie burgers. I just didn't feel a need for anything else. I guess an authentic Israeli shawarma just isn't my cup of herbal tea.
I have probably been asked more often about my vegetarian diet than about anything else. Many people seem to have a hard time envisioning their meals without meat. At some point I started noticing a pattern in the reactions of people who had just discovered I am a vegetarian. It goes something like this:
"You're a vegetarian? What do you eat?"
"Oh, you know. Pasta…vegetables…soups. Everything you eat, just no meat."
(Dumbfounded silence follows.)
But when a child becomes an adult, he dictates his own diet. One of my brothers took advantage of this by throwing a “meat party” on his eighteenth birthday. He and a group of friends went to a local restaurant for dinner, and one of them used his digital camera to take a video of him eating shawarma and chicken-matzo ball soup for the first time.
I chose not to follow him on The Meat Path.
I found myself on the brink of adulthood while on a study abroad program in Jerusalem, 5,901 miles from my parents. Even with the freedom that came from being so far away, I stuck with my veggie burgers. I just didn't feel a need for anything else. I guess an authentic Israeli shawarma just isn't my cup of herbal tea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)