Jim Reed on '20/20'

Our old friend, storm chaser Jim Reed (I published a portfolio of Jim's work in Photo Techniques a decade ago, give or take) will be appearing tonight on ABC's "20/20." The network had a crew follow him around while he and Katherine Bay photographed blizzard conditions on December 22nd in south-central Kansas, then brought him back to New York to talk one-on-one with ABC chief meteorologist Sam Champion.

Jim's new book Storm Chaser: A Photographer's Journey has proven very popular and a heavy seller. Over the Christmas season, many bookstores sold out. The publisher (Abrams) has told Jim that more books are on the way to bookstore shelves. In the meantime, Storm Chaser can be ordered online at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and several other e-commerce sites. The book is lovely. And don't forget to check out Jim on "20/20" if you're near the television tonight!

______________________

Mike

Featured Comment by Erlik: "And how did it go, for those of us who don't receive ABC?"

Featured Comment by Bob: "The story is available on the 20/20 Website. Text and video."

Mike Replies: That's a decent taste of it, but the video at the website isn't the whole feature. It's an abbreviated version—two minutes, whereas the televised version was, I dunno, maybe six or eight. Still, it gives you an idea of what the feature was like.

I thought the ABC News production was a bit cursory, but still interesting, and great exposure for Jim (although Jim is very good at publicity—he has appeared on "Good Morning America" and other shows, and been featured in many publications). One of the typical problems, as Michael Tapes pointed out to me privately, is that the producers concentrated on video. I suspect that news producers in general are so avid for usable video all of the time that it gets in their bloodstreams and they can't "turn it off" even for a piece about still photography. Other productions lean heavily on the "Ken Burns trick"—they zoom in and out or pan across still images as if they have to add some motion at any cost. It's unnecessary, but perhaps unavoidable.

Interesting, too, that an earlier feature on the same show was concerned with a Paparazzo and his strange "relationship" with she-who-shall-not-be-named, one of his prey.

Comments

[Claire Senft]

Thank you for the heads up.

[Wes]

Thanks for reminding us of this Mike. I will be sure to check it out.

Wes

[Igor]

FYI, here is another storm/weather-chaser
http://www.extremeinstability.com/

[Chris]

I've seen a lot of shots of mesocyclones and have even caught a couple in person, but that first shot with the mailbox in the foreground has to be one of the most artistic representations I've seen. Absolutely stunning shot!

[Mike Johnston]

I even like the name on the mailbox: "Noble Smith."

Mike J.

[Alexander Vesey]

Yesterday, I had a chance to look at this while browsing at a Borders. Many of the images are visually gripping, even stunning in some cases. I did not have much time to read the text, but my impression was the author focused on his storm chasing experiences rather than the details of photography. This is just a comment, not a critique, but I was hoping for some insights on his methods. (Then again, when faced with a roaring tornado, I suppose "Matrix metering and be there!" is sufficient.)

One other thing did strike me as I looked at some of the older images, i.e. they did not have level of micro-contrast that one often now sees in magazines. I do not know enough about the technical relationships between film scanning methods and book printing, so here as well I do not mean this as a criticism.

However, this perception did get me thinking. Given the pervasive presence of photoshopped pictures, HD TV, and other forms of enhanced imagery, I began to wonder whether I have been pre-programmed to take hyper-acuity and hyper-lighting for granted. Once I considered this, I came to appreciate Reed's images for the quality of their light, color, and content.

[Eolake Stobblehouse]

"they zoom in and out or pan across still images as if they have to add some motion at any cost. It's unnecessary, but perhaps unavoidable."

I know many photographers don't like that. But I think it's necessary due to the low resolution of a TV screen. You just can't get a whole photograph on it while at the same time get a good impression of important details like faces.