And in other news, all Holywood directors and cinematographers have been fired. in their place, LA taxi cab drivers have been given iPhones, and 15 minutes of training, to shoot all future feature films. A Holywood studio executive stated, " who needs to spend all this money on artistic talent when any three year old with an iPhone can do this job".
i dunno, given the quality of most of what comes out of hollywood these days i'm not sure i would be able to tell the difference ...
First, the ubiquity of smartphones is not the right reason to fire photographers because equipment is not what makes a professional photog. John White didn't win his Pulitzer because of his equipment (which is no better than that of other professional photogs). He also didn't win it because he knew the basics of how to use a camera. He won it because he is an artist and an artisan. He knew when to take a photograph, where to take it and how to take it. You cannot pass on such instincts in a basic training course.
Second, sports photography does require professional equipment. No smartphone can produce the spectacular shots typically shown on the front page of the sports section. The sensor, optics and speed are totally inadequate.
If this story accurately represents what Chicago Sun-Times is planning to do, it is not a decision about iPhonegraphy being good enough tools. It is a decision to forsake photography as an important tool.
Well said. Absolutely a moronic move! There appears to be no integrity left in the world of journalism, but it probably also says a lot about us as consumers. Of our mindless and endless stream of tweets, Facebook updates, and "reality" TV that are creating brain atrophy.
For some purposes an iPhone camera is fine. It can't take the place of all pro equipment obviously.
But forget the tech and the tools. The idea that a little "training" can make any old person the equivalent of an experienced professional photographer is absurd!
Sad for the photographers and sad for the newspapers. I really enjoy reading the morning paper. Prefer it over reading anything online.
The USA Today iPhone App is OK...but it's a nightmare on the desktop. You can't watch a video without first watching a 30 adv. I've stopped watching them because they are so annoying. Pop Ads...ads inside slide shows, Ugh!
Maybe apple is trying to pull a Nokia. I can see it right now...
This newspaper's pictures where taken entirely with the Apple iPhone 5. In half of the pictures you will see the reflection of a high end nikon taking the photo.
Print companies have to cut corners to stay in business. I just wonder if many will run out of corners to cut and go bankrupt as people get used to free online content. As a child everyone subscribed to the local newspaper and also several magazines as well. We are now the only house I see on our block with a newspaper box by our mailbox. I still think newspapers are important especially local ones where they offer news you just can't get anywhere else. We had a big corruption scandal involving the school superintendent that required months of in depth investigation and research before a full story could be done and this is something TV stations do not have the will or resources to do. Were it not for the local paper it is very likely this corruption would have continued unabated.
In a few years smart phone cameras will continue to progress to the point that they are nearly as good as dedicated cameras. Already there are some phones using CMOS sensors with optical zoom available by Sharp and Toshiba in Japan.
Nothing sad here. It just shows how iPhone's are also helping a struggling industry. It's not like National Geographic just switched to photos taken by people with their iPhones.
Your description is a rather poor one. They are likely to see some drawbacks here. DSLRs have been good enough for the past decade or longer. The only difference is that the cost of good enough has come down over time. Some of the focal length/aperture combinations available there that allow these guys to deal with certain lighting situations and limits on proximity will be less of an issue with a DSLR even today. I suspect the goal is to use a combination of snapshots from people writing editorial content, whatever interns, and other submissions to cut costs. It does not mean it will be of the same quality or of a level of quality comparable to what they would get if their recently axed photographers all used their phones. They're just trying to hit the level of good enough to accompany an article on whatever story, which is something blogs have done for years. The quality from recent smartphones has just been amazing though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I don't know about photographers, but i think that in a lot of businesses, it's much cheaper to use freelancers instead of keeping people on staff. Then they are not officially employees of the company, the employer doesn't have to pay health insurance, unemployment benefits, various taxes and ends up saving the employer a bunch of cash.
Photo agencies and publications used to call those stringers. Generally if you work freelance, you do have to charge more. This is because you have to pay your own social security tax up to cap in the form of self employment tax, your own health insurance at private insurance rates, and absorb the cost of dry periods. If they try to pay on the same basis used for staffers, it's not very sustainable and tends not to attract the best talent. There's also the abhorrent practice of "permalance" which you seem to have alluded to there, which is basically a full time job that pays via 1099. The IRS sometimes cracks down on those if employees are improperly classified as contractors.
The person who made the decision to fire the entire department of staff photographers is completely lacking in their knowledge of photography.
Complete and utter ignorance.
Cameras don't take pictures. People take pictures. And the quality of those pictures is dependent on the talent, skill and experience of the photographer.
Henri-Cartier Bresson could out shoot 99% of the world population with an iPhone, but even when equipped with the best DSLR on the planet, 99% of photographers could not accomplish what he could with the worst of equipment.
It's not about the gear. It's about who's taking the pictures.
But then again we now live is a world where unfortunately 'good enough' is the accepted norm.
This is disgusting and a perfect example of corporate bottom line thinking at it's worst. It's thinking like this that is ruining the country.
Wow, that was stupid. iphone doesn't produce printable photos even at newspaper resolution. Let's get rid of all specialists, corporate murrika. Are they going to fire the website managers and make the reporters do the site management next (or the reverse)? Maybe fire everyone and make the corporate executives do the website, newspaper, photography, and reporting.
It's hard to blame the newspaper executives for this decision. Most consumers of media would not be savvy enough to notice the difference. Though nothing beats the nearly-infinite flexibility of a pro DSLR camera with a good collection of lenses, the iPhone camera is "good enough" about 80% of the time. Obviously, depth of field and motion blur are nearly impossible to manipulate on a smartphone camera. It's sad to see the craft die off.
First, they came for the photographers.... Next, they'll come for the reporters... Bloggers will take over for Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters soon enough.
The person who made the decision to fire the entire department of staff photographers is completely lacking in their knowledge of photography.
Complete and utter ignorance.
Cameras don't take pictures. People take pictures. And the quality of those pictures is dependent on the talent, skill and experience of the photographer.
Henri-Cartier Bresson could out shoot 99% of the world population with an iPhone, but even when equipped with the best DSLR on the planet, 99% of photographers could not accomplish what he could with the worst of equipment.
It's not about the gear. It's about who's taking the pictures.
But then again we now live is a world where unfortunately 'good enough' is the accepted norm.
This is disgusting and a perfect example of corporate bottom line thinking at it's worst. It's thinking like this that is ruining the country.
I agree, but the problem is that these newspapers aren't generating enough profits due to the internet and our sources of news has changed. Back 50 years ago, you had to read the newspaper, now we don't. At least the generation growing up.
To me, I would rather them spend money on training their journalists to first find out about the industry they are covering and then ask better questions instead of the crap articles they spit out.
How many articles have your read where they didn't explain how, what, where, why, etc.? We only get some fluff piece which ultimately ends up promoting something or someone without really understanding the situation.
I guess these photographers are going to have to get into commercial photography, which I know many of them might hate. Or they have to go into art photography which generally doesn't pay much. I wish them well, and maybe the newspaper will hire them back when they realize the iPhone or any smartphone is not intended to replace a high end professional camera.
I can see training their journalists to take better photos when there isn't a photographer available, other than that I agree, it's dumb.
Wow, that was stupid. iphone doesn't produce printable photos even at newspaper resolution. Let's get rid of all specialists, corporate murrika. Are they going to fire the website managers and make the reporters do the site management next (or the reverse)? Maybe fire everyone and make the corporate executives do the website, newspaper, photography, and reporting.
I think this is a very interesting move, and will probably determine the future of printed media. None of us know anything about this newspaper's bottom line, or how much money they make versus how much they pay staff and Uncle Sam. I think it's interesting that they are thinking outside the box and doing something no other newspaper has done before. If they are trying to create an online presence, the phone may be good enough. If u owned the company and were losing a million dollars a year, i don't think you'd be trying to figure out a way to give photographers work. Industries are changing. Entire industries are turning upside down right now. You may say this is sad, but you might say its a good thing. This removes another wall between you and a professional photographer. Now anyone who owns an iPhone has everything you need to take a photo for this newspaper. Who knows, one day we may think dedicated cameras are a funny idea, and large cameras look old fashioned.
This is stupid. Being a good photographer isn't just training. It's experience and creativity that's makes them shine. Just because you can take a pic of your cat doesn't make you a prof photog.
I tried to find one with an iPhone, but surprisingly there doesn't seem to be anyone stupid enough to let their cat near their iPhone. Or, rather, there probably are people like that out there, but the iPhone would be their only camera so they couldn't take the picture of the cat…
Originally Posted by Hank Carter
But then again we now live is a world where unfortunately 'good enough' is the accepted norm. This is disgusting and a perfect example of corporate bottom line thinking at it's worst. It's thinking like this that is ruining the country.
I agree with the first and third sentences, and the second out of the context of the other two.
This MUST have been some sort of desperate attempt to tighten budget. Not to take anything away from the iPhone's camera, but this nothing short of stupidity.
The device can immediately upload the image to the office fastest wins. A photographer can do it with a wifi SD card and three minutes and it's kludgey. The models I've seen with built in wifi modules are even less smooth to upload with. Nothing like emailing it with one touch of the finger. There's no quite equivalent in pro cameras that can beat a phone in that respect (that I know of, yet).
We'll crop it at the office. He who posts online first wins. Ten minutes later is a lose.
Any other better pix needed that can't be gotten at iPhone range they'll get from a service in one minute.
Stupid bean-counters with no respect for other's profession and experience. They just assume they can put it on the reporters with a little training and save the salary of the photographers. Who cares about quality, more money in their pockets.
Comments
i dunno, given the quality of most of what comes out of hollywood these days i'm not sure i would be able to tell the difference ...
For some purposes an iPhone camera is fine. It can't take the place of all pro equipment obviously.
But forget the tech and the tools. The idea that a little "training" can make any old person the equivalent of an experienced professional photographer is absurd!
NYTimes title?: Popularity of iPhone Camera Results In Mass Layoff of Professional Photographers
Sad for the photographers and sad for the newspapers. I really enjoy reading the morning paper. Prefer it over reading anything online.
The USA Today iPhone App is OK...but it's a nightmare on the desktop. You can't watch a video without first watching a 30 adv. I've stopped watching them because they are so annoying. Pop Ads...ads inside slide shows, Ugh!
"everyone please stop moving, my iphone picture will be too blurry."
Maybe apple is trying to pull a Nokia. I can see it right now...
This newspaper's pictures where taken entirely with the Apple iPhone 5. In half of the pictures you will see the reflection of a high end nikon taking the photo.
Print companies have to cut corners to stay in business. I just wonder if many will run out of corners to cut and go bankrupt as people get used to free online content. As a child everyone subscribed to the local newspaper and also several magazines as well. We are now the only house I see on our block with a newspaper box by our mailbox. I still think newspapers are important especially local ones where they offer news you just can't get anywhere else. We had a big corruption scandal involving the school superintendent that required months of in depth investigation and research before a full story could be done and this is something TV stations do not have the will or resources to do. Were it not for the local paper it is very likely this corruption would have continued unabated.
In a few years smart phone cameras will continue to progress to the point that they are nearly as good as dedicated cameras. Already there are some phones using CMOS sensors with optical zoom available by Sharp and Toshiba in Japan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobsisgod
Nothing sad here. It just shows how iPhone's are also helping a struggling industry. It's not like National Geographic just switched to photos taken by people with their iPhones.
Your description is a rather poor one. They are likely to see some drawbacks here. DSLRs have been good enough for the past decade or longer. The only difference is that the cost of good enough has come down over time. Some of the focal length/aperture combinations available there that allow these guys to deal with certain lighting situations and limits on proximity will be less of an issue with a DSLR even today. I suspect the goal is to use a combination of snapshots from people writing editorial content, whatever interns, and other submissions to cut costs. It does not mean it will be of the same quality or of a level of quality comparable to what they would get if their recently axed photographers all used their phones. They're just trying to hit the level of good enough to accompany an article on whatever story, which is something blogs have done for years. The quality from recent smartphones has just been amazing though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I don't know about photographers, but i think that in a lot of businesses, it's much cheaper to use freelancers instead of keeping people on staff. Then they are not officially employees of the company, the employer doesn't have to pay health insurance, unemployment benefits, various taxes and ends up saving the employer a bunch of cash.
Photo agencies and publications used to call those stringers. Generally if you work freelance, you do have to charge more. This is because you have to pay your own social security tax up to cap in the form of self employment tax, your own health insurance at private insurance rates, and absorb the cost of dry periods. If they try to pay on the same basis used for staffers, it's not very sustainable and tends not to attract the best talent. There's also the abhorrent practice of "permalance" which you seem to have alluded to there, which is basically a full time job that pays via 1099. The IRS sometimes cracks down on those if employees are improperly classified as contractors.
The person who made the decision to fire the entire department of staff photographers is completely lacking in their knowledge of photography.
Complete and utter ignorance.
Cameras don't take pictures. People take pictures. And the quality of those pictures is dependent on the talent, skill and experience of the photographer.
Henri-Cartier Bresson could out shoot 99% of the world population with an iPhone, but even when equipped with the best DSLR on the planet, 99% of photographers could not accomplish what he could with the worst of equipment.
It's not about the gear. It's about who's taking the pictures.
But then again we now live is a world where unfortunately 'good enough' is the accepted norm.
This is disgusting and a perfect example of corporate bottom line thinking at it's worst. It's thinking like this that is ruining the country.
It's hard to blame the newspaper executives for this decision. Most consumers of media would not be savvy enough to notice the difference. Though nothing beats the nearly-infinite flexibility of a pro DSLR camera with a good collection of lenses, the iPhone camera is "good enough" about 80% of the time. Obviously, depth of field and motion blur are nearly impossible to manipulate on a smartphone camera. It's sad to see the craft die off.
First, they came for the photographers....
Next, they'll come for the reporters...
Bloggers will take over for Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters soon enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Carter
The person who made the decision to fire the entire department of staff photographers is completely lacking in their knowledge of photography.
Complete and utter ignorance.
Cameras don't take pictures. People take pictures. And the quality of those pictures is dependent on the talent, skill and experience of the photographer.
Henri-Cartier Bresson could out shoot 99% of the world population with an iPhone, but even when equipped with the best DSLR on the planet, 99% of photographers could not accomplish what he could with the worst of equipment.
It's not about the gear. It's about who's taking the pictures.
But then again we now live is a world where unfortunately 'good enough' is the accepted norm.
This is disgusting and a perfect example of corporate bottom line thinking at it's worst. It's thinking like this that is ruining the country.
I agree, but the problem is that these newspapers aren't generating enough profits due to the internet and our sources of news has changed. Back 50 years ago, you had to read the newspaper, now we don't. At least the generation growing up.
To me, I would rather them spend money on training their journalists to first find out about the industry they are covering and then ask better questions instead of the crap articles they spit out.
How many articles have your read where they didn't explain how, what, where, why, etc.? We only get some fluff piece which ultimately ends up promoting something or someone without really understanding the situation.
I guess these photographers are going to have to get into commercial photography, which I know many of them might hate. Or they have to go into art photography which generally doesn't pay much. I wish them well, and maybe the newspaper will hire them back when they realize the iPhone or any smartphone is not intended to replace a high end professional camera.
I can see training their journalists to take better photos when there isn't a photographer available, other than that I agree, it's dumb.
The iPhone doesn't take printable photos?
Ok.
Originally Posted by jungmark
This is stupid. Being a good photographer isn't just training. It's experience and creativity that's makes them shine. Just because you can take a pic of your cat doesn't make you a prof photog.
I tried to find one with an iPhone, but surprisingly there doesn't seem to be anyone stupid enough to let their cat near their iPhone. Or, rather, there probably are people like that out there, but the iPhone would be their only camera so they couldn't take the picture of the cat…
Originally Posted by Hank Carter
But then again we now live is a world where unfortunately 'good enough' is the accepted norm. This is disgusting and a perfect example of corporate bottom line thinking at it's worst. It's thinking like this that is ruining the country.
I agree with the first and third sentences, and the second out of the context of the other two.
The device can immediately upload the image to the office fastest wins. A photographer can do it with a wifi SD card and three minutes and it's kludgey. The models I've seen with built in wifi modules are even less smooth to upload with. Nothing like emailing it with one touch of the finger. There's no quite equivalent in pro cameras that can beat a phone in that respect (that I know of, yet).
We'll crop it at the office. He who posts online first wins. Ten minutes later is a lose.
Any other better pix needed that can't be gotten at iPhone range they'll get from a service in one minute.
That and the labor busting thing, yeah.
Wow. This is sad.
Being a photographer is so much more than operating the equipment.