Pictures

GENERAL

At Reuters we can be rightly proud of our talented camera operators working in various parts of the world. These people are every bit as good as the camera operators working for broadcasters: many of them are considerably better. The main difference between them is that good operators in broadcasting tend to become specialists and move on to full-time feature work or spend most of their time on prestige shoots. Our operators have to stay with the full range of agency jobs, from the “boring” news conference to the multi-location feature shoot. It is difficult to be as enthusiastic about the former as the latter, but news conferences need just as much care. In many ways, to shoot one in an original way is more of a challenge.

It takes skill to produce articulate images that tell a story; pictures that capture the location, the atmosphere, the prevailing mood and tell the story that needs to be told. Experienced operators set the standard for others to follow. Every time they shoot another camera operator or take a shot of someone fiddling with their pen as a cutaway, they reinforce the message that these are acceptable cutaways – they are not. They don’t help tell the story and they make it harder to train other people to be good camera operators. (See section on “Cutaways”).

One of the basics of camerawork, as far as RVN is concerned, involves holding the shot long enough to make it as usable as possible for clients. Camera operators are often asked to work in difficult circumstances, operators simply have to record events to the best of their ability while paying due attention to their own safety and the safety of their colleagues. Often they have little or no control over how they have to do their jobs and we appreciate whatever they can produce under those circumstances. However, the majority of our output is not shot in such hazardous conditions and we do have much more control over what we are able to record. It’s sometimes disappointing, therefore, to see wobbly pictures and unnecessary pans and zooms. Beware of pans that begin and end in an interesting way, but draw attention to dull areas in the middle. We are operating in an increasingly sophisticated visual world where viewers expect high quality images. They are unlikely to make allowances for pictures that fall below this standard unless they can see an obvious reason for it. Tripods really are essential for all but the most extreme circumstances, when their use is clearly impractical. Even so, some of our best “action” footage has been shot using a tripod by cameramen whose “on-the-shoulder work” is as steady as anyone’s. They know how much better their pictures can be with a tripod. Many of the most effective shots are simply static, well-framed images and the camera only moves to follow the action. Using camera movement to inject pace into a story might work for music videos and certain Showbiz stories, but for news stories and features the pace should be controlled by the editing.

Only move the camera is there is a good reason for it. Pans and Zooms, when used properly, are effective ways of illustrating a story. Used inappropriately, they become distracting and, in some cases, impossible to use in a broadcast edit. An acceptable use of the pan may be to show the relative positions of people of places, e.g. to show the scene of an explosion relative to the place where the mortar was launched or to show a line-up of a new cabinet. However, even for these types of moves, they must be shot in a way which will make them useful to clients. They should begin and end with a six second static shot and the move should not last for more than about six seconds. This gives an editor the widest range of choices of which part of the shot they need, if they don’t want all 18 seconds of it. It must be shot at a speed that is comfortable to the eye – some camera moves are capable of inducing motion sickness!

There is often a lack of “set-up” shots of speakers or, better still, relevant alternatives. When they are done, in many instances they are predictable computer or phone set-ups and are often unusable because the hands do not leave the frame which leads to an inevitable jump to the speaker. Having earlier suggested that cameras should move to follow the action, they must also allow the action to leave the frame at times, or it becomes impossible to edit without a jump-cut. Experienced camera operators edit in their heads as they shoot so that they can plan how their shots can go together. To avoid missing the story, they must sometimes shoot an event that they know will be a jump-cut. In these circumstances, making a mental note to shoot a cutaway later will help the editor out of the problem.

When framing your pictures, you have to decide what to include and what to exclude. You may be eliminating distractions or holding back some information from the viewer which you will reveal in a subsequent shot.

Centre screen is stable a good for emphasizing a single object. The edges of the screen are like magnets. They pull on any object that gets too close. Corners of the frame tend to pull subjects out of frame. Avoid having the edge of the frame run through natural joints on the body. Just above the elbow, waist or knee is better than through them. A person should not be jammed up against the top of the frame. Too little space makes the image cramped and uncomfortable. Too much makes the screen bottom-heavy and unbalanced. Headroom changes with the length of a shot. A long shot demands more headroom than a mid shot. The only exception to the headroom rule is the big close-up which has the face so full in frame that it cuts through the forehead or chin.

Checklist:

• Hold shots long enough to make them as usable as possible.
• Tripods are essential for all but the most extreme circumstances.
• Static, well-framed images are the most effective pictures.
• The pace of the edit should be controlled by the editing, not by the camera moves.
• Only move the camera if there is a good reason for it.
• Pans and zooms can become distracting if used inappropriately.
• Shoot pans and zooms with at least a six-second static beginning and end shot and the move should not last more than about six seconds.
• Be more inventive with |”set up” shots of speakers.
• Allow the subject, or the subject’s hands, etc, to leave the frame.
• When you shoot pictures that will lead to a jump cut, remember to pick up a cutaway that will solve the problem.
• Ensure cutaways are good story-telling pictures, not throwaway images.

Cutaways

We can all appreciate that cutaways are necessary to avoid jump-cuts in edits, but they should also be part of the story, not just a technical device to help with editing. They take the viewers’ attention away from a specific action to allow a change to take place while the viewer is looking the other way. They are called cutaways because they ‘cut away’ from a specific action, not because they ‘cut away’ from the story.

It isn't always easy to get good, story-telling cutaways, particularly on occasions when there really isn't much available to shoot in an original way. If you are covering a story which is mainly based on an interview, I can see there is a limit to the number of interior shots or mid shots of the subject you can use. However, some of the cutaways we see all too often have almost become a cliché of sorts: wall plaques, ornaments, fiddling hands, pens, or pointing the camera at other journalists and their cameras don't move the story on at all and are redundant. They are unwelcome interruptions to the main action and not easy on the eye.

Of course there are times when a bank of cameras is a story-telling picture. It is perfectly acceptable to show cameras, satellite trucks, journalists, etc, when illustrating a story which involves overwhelming media attention created by the event. On the other hand, the fact there are a handful of other cameras at a politician’s news conference is not a significant fact in any story. It is also not a dynamic picture. Simply taking a shot of another camera operator recording the same news conference,sometimes in profile, or even worse, full frontal down their lens, is not suitable as a cutaway. It interrupts the visual flow of the story.The misuse of cutaways can spoil what could otherwise be a reasonable or good edit. Firstly, they are not always necessary. Too many edits still include someone walking out of a room, a cutaway of some flags, the same person in a different location. In this example, the flags are unnecessary.

Walking in or out of shot is all that is required to make an effective edit and avoid a jump-cut. Don’t feel obliged to add a meaningless shot between two sections of the edit if they cut together without that separating shot.

We must ON NO ACCOUNT use shots of APTN camera operators, complete with their company logo. We can't defend this on any level. There is no good reason why we should supply our clients with an advert for the opposition.

Not only is it highly unlikely the shot will be useful in helping them tell a story but, if - in desperation - they do use it, we have managed to get the APTN logo onto their screens, which defeats our own purpose. So – avoid taking shots of other camera operators and never use cutaways of APTN camera operators.

Close-ups of faces showing reaction, or emotion, are much better cutaways. These faces can be other people due to speak at the news conference, people in the audience or aides watching the performance of their leader. Close-ups of faces show vital reaction and emotion. If they are missing from an edit then the emotion has to be conveyed in a script written and voiced by someone who perhaps wasn't even there. The closer you move towards a person's face, the more intense the emotion. Their eyes often say it all, no need for words. Good examples of this approach were demonstrated by Reuters camera operators filming the crowds in St Peter's Square in the days leading up to, during and beyond the funeral of Pope John Paul II. Close shots of faces and expressions conveyed pathos and provided contemplative images, a respite from so many pictures of seething masses. The contrast was both effective and creative.

If you have to show other journalists, then it is better to show reporters making notes than operators holding cameras, at least the former contains some action and says something – that the last statement was worthy of note! Wider shots of journalists writing are as useful as tight close-ups of a pen and pad, but don’t just include the close up without the wider shot to establish who is writing.

Cutaways of the producer asking questions in a one-on-one interview should also be avoided where possible. It is difficult for a female reporter to voice a story containing a cutaway of a male reporter asking a question in ‘her story’. It is better to intersperse clips of interview with pictures relevant to the subject being discussed in the interview. The clients can then either leave them in the edit and voice over them, or use some of them to overlay the interview and make it more interesting to watch. Wide shots of the interviewee can also be used but make sure the shots are compatible, i.e. don’t have the man in glasses in the wide and without glasses in the interview.

Understanding the story and listening carefully to the answers will help suggest fresh pictures or appropriate file that can be cut between the sound-bites in place of cutaways. Clients will have to do this when they package the interview and will need pictures to cover voice-overs that make the transition from one sound-bite to the next. Let’s think the same way and provide good story-telling images rather than a random selection of after-thought pictures that are only slightly more use than a caption which reads: ‘Please Ignore - This is only here to avoid a jump-cut’.

One indication that someone has shot a meaningless cutaway is when reading shot-lists. If a producer doesn’t feel the need to describe a shot separating two interview clips with anything more imaginative than the word ‘cutaway’ then it is probably not a story-telling picture and therefore of little use to broadcasters. Camera operators should value their art by taking articulate pictures and producers should preserve that value by not under-selling pictures as nothing more than a necessary evil.

Please don't use the word ‘cutaway’ in shotlists – describe the picture, not its function.

When you’ve taken the time to find some good pictures, be generous. Don’t limit us to just one, show us the variety of your imagination and provide the clients with plenty of options on cutaways as well as sound-bites. I can't emphasize this enough. Cutaways are the bolts with which we hold our edits together, but that does not mean they have to be obvious.

Checklist:

• Cutaways are not always needed. If two shots do not jump when edited together, then a cutaway is not necessary.
• Let people walk in or out of shot to avoid having to shoot a lot of cutaways.
• Cutaways should be part of the edit and storytelling pictures in their own right.
• Try to avoid wall plaques, ornaments, fiddling hands, pens etc.
• Don’t shoot other camera operators unless overwhelming media interest is an element of the story.
• NEVER use shots of APTN camera operators.
• Shoot close-ups of faces to show reaction or emotion, the closer you get, the more emotive the shot will be.
• Wide shots of journalists writing are useful as well as tight close-ups of a pen and pad, but don’t just include the close up without the wider shot to establish who is writing.
• Use cutaways of the producer asking questions in a one-on-one interview only as a last resort.

Pictures relevant to the subject of the interview can be used to separate soundbites but use more than one shot.

• Wide shots of the interviewee can also be used but make sure the shots are compatible, i.e. don’t have the person in glasses in the wide and without glasses in the interview.
• Understand the story and listen carefully to the answers.
• Look for fresh pictures or appropriate file that can be cut between the sound-bites in place of cutaways.
• Don’t use the word ‘cutaway’ in shotlists – describe the picture, not its function.
• Don’t limit the edit to a single cutaway – provide as wide a choice as possible.

Vox Pops

Vox Pops, known more formally as the ‘voice of the people’, should only be used when the ‘people’ can realistically be expected to have some knowledge about the subject, or when their views are of interest to others. Vox pops can help to tell or illustrate a story, or indicate a sample of opinions, but they are often misused. Strong vox pops will convey a reasonably wide range of public views on a controversial subject or an issue of importance and will generally be most effective when they deal with something the people questioned care about and have decided views on.

One comment from each person interviewed is usually enough. Sometime a "yes" or a "no" answer or an emotional response will suffice and can be just as effective. Eyewitness accounts can also make good vox-pops as they tend to be descriptive, urgent and more expansive.

So, vox-pops can be used as a survey of general opinion, not as a collection of detailed interviews with selected members of the public. If a more considered response is required, the people in question should be interviewed properly and a greater length. There will be times when informed opinion, rather than general remarks are what is required. So, if we ask ourselves who is likely to care most about an issue and the answer is a teacher, a doctor or a soldier, then we should chase their particular comment. To go one step further, they can all be put in context, where possible: a soldier could be filmed speaking outside an army barracks or at a checkpoint, a doctor inside a hospital or in his surgery full of patients and the teacher inside a classroom of schoolchildren, or simply alone in front of a blackboard.

One tried and tested formula used in some of our edits in the past has been to shoot a variety of newspaper headlines and follow the sequence immediately with a series of vox-pops sometimes not in the same location.

It's a standard method, but if instead we filmed a person reading a newspaper, then interrupting his or her reading to give an opinion of the issues mentioned in the paper, the sequence would be more imaginative and flow a little more smoothly. The comment would also give the impression of being more immediate.

Ideally, everyone should be asked the same simple question so that the answers can be cut together as a sequence.

If people have answered different questions, the pace of the edit is considerably slower while the voice-over, or the reporter’s question, has to establish that the second answer cannot be directly compared to the first.

For example: ‘Do you think the millennium dome in London was worth the money spent on it?’ should not be changed to ‘Do you think the money spent on the millennium dome could have been better spent?’ unless you are going to abandon the answers to the first question altogether because you think the second one makes a better story. It’s also difficult to use short answers to those questions in the same story because they mean different things i.e. A ‘yes’ answer to the above questions means completely opposite things. Try to decide what question you would like the public to answer and then be consistent in your questioning. And, most importantly, ask open questions wherever possible: "Why do you think Tony Blair should resign?" will give you a far more comprehensive response than if you ask: "Do you think Tony Blair should resign?" which will elicit a "yes" or a "no" answer and not much more!

Always try to establish a person’s name, title and nationality, especially if it is relevant to the story. It's frustrating to see a person described as an "unidentified man" "unknown woman" in our shotlists before a soundbite, particularly if what they are saying is particularly relevant to the story in question. It's even more pointed when we name some speaking in an edit and not others. Vague labels and identities are unsatisfactory. They give the impression we have not done our research thoroughly enough. As a matter of courtesy, unless a person has specifically asked not to be identified, we should pay him or her the compliment of identifying them by their correct name. Of course, there will occasionally be times when some interviewees are unwilling to speak unless we agree to conceal their identity, in which case we should simply mention in the script and shotlist that they have asked to remain anonymous.

Sometimes a vox-pop might become more important to clients if they are a visiting tourist from another country, especially if it’s their country!

Shooting vox-pops is simple, but there are a couple of ‘dos and don’ts’:

• DO shoot members of the public facing in opposite directions so they will cut together without giving the impression of a jump cut by having two similar shots, with similar framing, next to each other.
• DO get a range of ages and sexes if you are trying to convey the impression of widespread public opinion.
• DO shoot them in a location that is appropriate to the subject under discussion – everyone does not have to be in a street or in a bar.
• DO try to get a variety of opinions but, if everyone is agreed, then the vox pops are equally valid.
• DON’T use a ridiculous answer just because he/she is the only one to hold a different point of view.
• DON’T shoot people in the same location with the same background or the sequence will jump when you put them together. When the best vox-pops are chosen and correctly edited, with the interviewees facing in opposite directions against different backgrounds, then a full transcription must be included in the shot-list. Partial translations or paraphrasing is not acceptable. ‘Man talking about the government’s handling of the economy’ is unusable because it sounds as ridiculous in a voice-over as it does in a shot-list. Leave paraphrasing to the clients, we should be reporting exactly what is being said.

Checklist:

• Vox-pops give a snap-shot of public opinion on a subject of importance to them.
• Use them only when people can realistically be expected to have some knowledge about the subject or when their views are of interest to others. Use them for stories where the public’s reaction is important.
• They should not be a collection of detailed interviews with selected members of the public.
• Ask everyone the same simple question so that the answers can be cut together as a sequence.
• Decide what question you would like the public to answer and then ask them.
• Ask open rather than closed questions to elicit a more comprehensive response.
• Include names, titles and/or nationalities if possible, especially if they are significant to the story.
• Shoot members of the public facing in opposite directions.
• Get a range of ages and sexes to convey the impression of widespread public opinion.
• Shoot them in a location that is appropriate to the subject under discussion.
• Try to get a variety of opinions but they are still valid if you get total agreement.
• Don’t use a ridiculous answer just because he/she is the only one to hold a different point of view.
• Don’t shoot people in the same location with the same background.
• A full transcription of the comments must be included in the shot-list.

Graphic Video

There has been much debate between media organizations over the transmission of graphic video, particularly in regard to the executions of hostages in Iraq. Whatever the arguments for and against running graphic video of this kind, we should follow certain policy guidelines. Our job as an agency involves us, on occasion, having to decide to distribute graphic material to our clients, even if it is distasteful to us as individuals. We have the advantage of not being a broadcaster to the public and it is for our clients to decide how and what to use of it.

When the decision has been taken to transmit such material:

• A call must immediately be made to the Feed Room telling them NOT to run the footage on Reuters.com or other websites.
• A call should be made to senior managers in London when we are about to run such video.
• As it is not possible for us to predict exactly what this type of video might show, there may be occasions when we’ll make the decision on an individual circumstance.

We must follow this procedure before transmitting any graphic video on WNS/WNE.

1. FLASHES – We should give clients at least a five minute warning before flashing pictures of beheadings or other graphic material on WNS by putting up a slate to advise that extremely graphic material will follow. An advisory should be sent to all clients at the earliest opportunity and calls made to clients, where appropriate, so that they are as prepared as possible.
2. FEEDS – The graphic footage should be run as the first or the last item on a WNS feed with 30 seconds of slate in front of it advising of graphic content. A written advisory must also be sent to clients before the feed, warning of any graphic content and whether the story will run first or last. It should never be run in the middle of a feed.
3. ISOLATE THE EDIT – It is preferable to always isolate graphic material as a separate edit, never to include it as an element in a wrap for subsequent feeds. This will remove the need for producers to re-edit such disturbing video and helps to isolate it so that the warning protection is maintained.
4. CONTENT – The story should only contain the graphic material with clients having no other reason to look at it unless that is what they want to use.
5. TITLE – Stories of a graphic mature should always be called “Beheading” of “Torture” rather than by a title which may not convey the seriousness of what clients are about to see. For example, “Hostage” does not necessarily convey the fact of a beheading. In the case where we run a six or seven minute edit as a flash, the re-edited version for a WNS feed should be named, for example, “Beheading Edit” to differentiate between the two versions.

We should always be able to hold any reason for running graphic video up to the light to justify the decision. If the graphic material IS the story or tells the story, there could be strong justification for making it available to clients.

There’s a danger of over censoring such material when we edit it, in case it can be said to be trivialising the incident, but the pictures should also not be gratuitously graphic. We should not be running close shots of dead or tortured people’s faces for reasons of sensitivity and sometimes for legal reasons. In some cases, pixilation of the pictures is both necessary and appropriate to obscure a person’s identity.

Newspaper Photos

Reuters has a clear policy with regard to videoing newspapers to show how a country’s media is covering a story. We could be risking legal action for breach of copyright if we are not careful about how this is done. The main problem relates to photographs, but there are other issues.

Firstly, it is important to include the masthead (title of newspaper, magazine, etc) in the shot. This acts as a credit to the publication to show we are not attempting to steal their work and pass it off as our own.

Secondly, if the article we are featuring is very small do not zoom in and hold the shot long enough to read the entire article. This stops any publication claiming we are using their journalists to tell the story for us.

On the issue of photographs, the basic guideline is DO NOT include them. It is very difficult to establish the copyright of photographs, which may not be owned by the publication. When videoing the newspaper do not include ANY photograph on the page, regardless of whether or not it is related to the story we are featuring. For example, we could be sued for breach of copyright for including the photograph of a model whose photograph just happened to have been printed on the same page as the article we wanted to feature.

ON NO ACCOUNT should we feature a controversial photograph in a newspaper as a way of telling a story when we do not have the picture ourselves. These photographs have invariably been sold to the newspaper, which will almost certainly not have bought the worldwide rights. Even including the masthead as a credit does not help in this case, because we may not have credited the owner of the photograph, which actually makes things worse! An example of photographs in this category would be topless photographs of a celebrity. These types of pictures are usually not an illustration of the ‘story’; they are the ‘story’ itself.

VNRS

We occasionally include video news release (VNR) material or handout video in our edits. We should always identify the source of the material in the template, script and shotlist and always check its authenticity.

Clients have a right to know who has supplied the video and the library also need to know so they can check if the material can be re-sold as archive. For example, the source line on scripts should read:

SOURCE: VNR (MICROSOFT) TV AND WEB RESTRICTIONS: NONE