Here are the opening paragraphs from an article I wrote about golf photography last year. I’ve posted this on my blog before, but I think it is worth airing again.
Like curry, politics and religion, photography prompts an immediate response. Indeed, unlike other media, there is no pause, delay or interruption when you look at a photograph – you either love it, or you hate it. For some, however, the issue of photography goes far beyond merely preferences.
“I can’t believe they don’t get it,” exclaims an incensed magazine editor. “Good photography can make such a difference to their coverage.” Sitting quietly, I let the respected journalist let fly, venting his fury on golf clubs that clearly don’t agree with his assertion. With 22 years under his belt, the daily search for images for his market-leading magazine has clearly left its mark.
I have heard this so many times from editors. Faced with a dearth of good photography, they inevitably fall back on clubs that do provide good-quality images that capture the spirit of the game and instil a desire to play. That, after all, is what golf-friendly magazines, websites and newspapers are all about. The result is clubs with good photography get greater coverage.