Why? It's Chicago. You have millions of citizens and hundreds of news locations on a daily basis. Having a staff is far simpler to delegate stories to than to have an on-call group of independent people who may or may not be ready.
That's not how it works. Many freelancers are out and about and go to where there's breaking news. They take pictures and turn them in, if any get used then they get paid.
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.
Heck, even "not good enough" is good enough, and has been for years. 20 years ago news crews were reporter, camera and audio. Audio was replaced with auto-level control on the camera. It screws up and sounds awful as often as not. Nobody cares. Now we use IP-based systems for transferring material which introduce all kinds of compression artifacts - pixelly images and gurgly sound. No one cares.
Lower-budget stations have now even eliminated the camera operator so the reporter has to both interview and shoot. That often looks and sound horrid. No one cares.
So the move made by this newspaper is terrible and will result in crappier product and no one will care.
These firings have nothing to do with cameras or photographers at all really, IMO. It's economics.
Are the people who are criticizing the firing of the photographers aware that old media is on the decline, and has been for many years now? You go start a newspaper and hire a bunch of photographers, and see how successful you will be, and see if your business will even last it's first year.
Times change, businesses come and go. Those that don't adapt, die out. I don't even remember the last time that I actually bought a physical newspaper.
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.
Good points...I check my iPhone USA today app first thing in the AM. Just to see if there is anything earth shaking going on. Then I read my local newspaper. i've noticed lately, more and more news items are reported the next day (or two) in the newspaper from what I've read online. I get Time for a sort of more in depth news roundup, weekly. Listen to NPR and read the Sat. edition of the WSJ, (like their book reviews section, not their editorial bent so much- a bit too negative!)
And then read current books on subjects I'm interested in. Can't stand TV....except for Fareed Zakaria! Who is first class!
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.
Agreed. I would use the F word here if I could. Really. Fxxk the bean counters. If you want to cut a budget, cut half and see how you do. Don't implode your company like circuit city did when they fired all of the higher paid experienced sales people and wondered why sales droped far more then the saved money.
So I guess Tim has to announce that the # of jobs Apple created has fallen to 599,972. To hell with any company that makes money by firing good citizens, instead of figuring out how to be good enough to grow with what they have. 28 families tonight are under stress because of a leader's failure. ... Also, the argument of "news companies don't need super-high quality photos for print media" is BS as the news industry is evolving online where image quality is the trend (Retina, 1080p, 4K, etc). Phone pictures are decent but still semi-professional, and that's what readers will begin to associate the Sun-Times with at some point and their failures will be evident in the numbers.
My wife has a standard 'point and shoot' camera and she takes it places when she expects to take pictures or videos of our young daughter at some event. My iPhone is always with me and, though it is slightly inferior to her camera, it is far more valuable because I can instantly (well almost) take videos or pictures of something my daughter just does on the spot. The videos we have of her in these types of situations are priceless.
So, I would like to add that "The best video recorder is the one that you have with you"!
Wow, that was stupid. iphone doesn't produce printable photos even at newspaper resolution.
What is newspaper resolution and more importantly what is newspaper quality? The quality is significantly less than that of a magazine, and 6 megapixels would likely be more than enough for most newspaper photo resolutions - right? So with 8 megapixels on the iphone you have room for downsizing which tightens up the image. And the nominal quality of newspaper photos can easily be attained by the iphone given adequate lighting and minimized motion.
Sad, so sad for those photographers. I take photography as a side hobby, and despite the massive improvements in phone cameras recently, those photos still cannot measure up to the dedicated high end cameras. Heck, it's easy enough to tell an image taken by an iPhone 5 and that taken by $600 Nikon/Canon prosumer DSLR. You paid $600 for a dedicated camera, versus $600 for a phone that just happens to also has a camera.
Becoming a photog isn't easy. There are lots of training, interning, learning on the jobs, and yes, heavy investment in photo equipments. It's so sad to see a large newspaper ditching all the arts of photography and tell the photogs "just take pictures with your phone".
That's true. However, when most news is online and pictures are usually no more than 800x600, and printed magazines are slowly going out of style and read on tablets, SLR quality is not a necessity methink. It's sad.
Neither the newspaper nor the people commenting here get it.
It's not the camera that takes the picture but the eye of the photographer.
No matter of the "quality" of the iPhone camera, it has no control over depth of field, focal length, etc.
The iPhone may be the best point and shoot camera, but except for a few lucky occasions that happen to call for the phone's setup, it just won't be the proper tool.
There is a difference between taking a picture like an insurance adjuster or telling a story in an image like a good photographer will do.
The premise here is that photographers are just button pushers and that their "technical" know-how has been superceded by better hardware.
Nothing could be further from the truth, if anything, technology allows photographers to focus on the story telling without getting caught up in the technicalities.
What's next? Replacing journalists with fifth-graders because they already know how to spell the majority of the words?
Journalism isn't spelling, and photography isn't button pushing.
The management of that newspaper is who should get laid off.
These firings have nothing to do with cameras or photographers at all really, IMO. It's economics.
Are the people who are criticizing the firing of the photographers aware that old media is on the decline, and has been for many years now? You go start a newspaper and hire a bunch of photographers, and see how successful you will be, and see if your business will even last it's first year.
Times change, businesses come and go. Those that don't adapt, die out. I don't even remember the last time that I actually bought a physical newspaper.
I agree that 'old media' is struggling and the photo department is almost always the first one to get the axe when money gets tight. I've had my own brush with the news business and have friends and family still working in it, so I am very familiar with this.
But reading the article is sounds more like the reasoning behind the decision was that any monkey who can hold an iPhone, can bring in coverage. You no longer need one of those overpaid and obsolete photographers, let alone a whole department, because technology has evolved to the point that anyone who can aim a cellphone in the general direction of the action is going to turn in to Eddie Adams.
But reading the article is sounds more like the reasoning behind the decision was that any monkey who can hold an iPhone, can bring in coverage. You no longer need one of those overpaid and obsolete photographers, let alone a whole department, because technology has evolved to the point that anyone who can aim a cellphone in the general direction of the action is going to turn in to Eddie Adams.
I agree that if that is the reasoning behind the decision, then it is totally ridiculous.
NYTimes title?: Popularity of iPhone Camera Results In Mass Layoff of Professional Photographers
Nope, that headline has a positive tone for Apple. More likely: "Apple Causes Photographers to be Fired" Or "iFired: How Apple is Causing Layoffs in the Media"
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…
I agree that if that is the reasoning behind the decision, then it is totally ridiculous.
They must have been and will continue using freelance for stuff that needs close ups and quality like sports.
Not only do sports NEED no quality, sports NEED no coverage.
Sports are a useless waste of time, a distraction from what matters.
What matters in a democracy is to cover the subject matters that are relevant to policy decisions: war, environment, social issues, health care, conduct of government itself.
The press has degenerated to a reproduction of pre-spun news releases and insurance-adjuster "quality" images.
Not to be childish, but you might want to edit the following:
With smartphones, or camera-toting feature phones, being nearly ubiquitous, an increasing number of news outlets are turning to the pubic for immediate "on the scene" shots.
Comments
That's not how it works. Many freelancers are out and about and go to where there's breaking news. They take pictures and turn them in, if any get used then they get paid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Carter
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.
Heck, even "not good enough" is good enough, and has been for years. 20 years ago news crews were reporter, camera and audio. Audio was replaced with auto-level control on the camera. It screws up and sounds awful as often as not. Nobody cares. Now we use IP-based systems for transferring material which introduce all kinds of compression artifacts - pixelly images and gurgly sound. No one cares.
Lower-budget stations have now even eliminated the camera operator so the reporter has to both interview and shoot. That often looks and sound horrid. No one cares.
So the move made by this newspaper is terrible and will result in crappier product and no one will care.
These firings have nothing to do with cameras or photographers at all really, IMO. It's economics.
Are the people who are criticizing the firing of the photographers aware that old media is on the decline, and has been for many years now? You go start a newspaper and hire a bunch of photographers, and see how successful you will be, and see if your business will even last it's first year.
Times change, businesses come and go. Those that don't adapt, die out. I don't even remember the last time that I actually bought a physical newspaper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac
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.
Good points...I check my iPhone USA today app first thing in the AM. Just to see if there is anything earth shaking going on. Then I read my local newspaper. i've noticed lately, more and more news items are reported the next day (or two) in the newspaper from what I've read online. I get Time for a sort of more in depth news roundup, weekly. Listen to NPR and read the Sat. edition of the WSJ, (like their book reviews section, not their editorial bent so much- a bit too negative!)
And then read current books on subjects I'm interested in. Can't stand TV....except for Fareed Zakaria! Who is first class!
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.
Agreed. I would use the F word here if I could. Really. Fxxk the bean counters. If you want to cut a budget, cut half and see how you do. Don't implode your company like circuit city did when they fired all of the higher paid experienced sales people and wondered why sales droped far more then the saved money....
Also, the argument of "news companies don't need super-high quality photos for print media" is BS as the news industry is evolving online where image quality is the trend (Retina, 1080p, 4K, etc). Phone pictures are decent but still semi-professional, and that's what readers will begin to associate the Sun-Times with at some point and their failures will be evident in the numbers.
That is so very true!
My wife has a standard 'point and shoot' camera and she takes it places when she expects to take pictures or videos of our young daughter at some event. My iPhone is always with me and, though it is slightly inferior to her camera, it is far more valuable because I can instantly (well almost) take videos or pictures of something my daughter just does on the spot. The videos we have of her in these types of situations are priceless.
So, I would like to add that "The best video recorder is the one that you have with you"!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria
Wow, that was stupid. iphone doesn't produce printable photos even at newspaper resolution.
What is newspaper resolution and more importantly what is newspaper quality? The quality is significantly less than that of a magazine, and 6 megapixels would likely be more than enough for most newspaper photo resolutions - right? So with 8 megapixels on the iphone you have room for downsizing which tightens up the image. And the nominal quality of newspaper photos can easily be attained by the iphone given adequate lighting and minimized motion.
Neither the newspaper nor the people commenting here get it.
It's not the camera that takes the picture but the eye of the photographer.
No matter of the "quality" of the iPhone camera, it has no control over depth of field, focal length, etc.
The iPhone may be the best point and shoot camera, but except for a few lucky occasions that happen to call for the phone's setup, it just won't be the proper tool.
There is a difference between taking a picture like an insurance adjuster or telling a story in an image like a good photographer will do.
The premise here is that photographers are just button pushers and that their "technical" know-how has been superceded by better hardware.
Nothing could be further from the truth, if anything, technology allows photographers to focus on the story telling without getting caught up in the technicalities.
What's next? Replacing journalists with fifth-graders because they already know how to spell the majority of the words?
Journalism isn't spelling, and photography isn't button pushing.
The management of that newspaper is who should get laid off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
These firings have nothing to do with cameras or photographers at all really, IMO. It's economics.
Are the people who are criticizing the firing of the photographers aware that old media is on the decline, and has been for many years now? You go start a newspaper and hire a bunch of photographers, and see how successful you will be, and see if your business will even last it's first year.
Times change, businesses come and go. Those that don't adapt, die out. I don't even remember the last time that I actually bought a physical newspaper.
I agree that 'old media' is struggling and the photo department is almost always the first one to get the axe when money gets tight. I've had my own brush with the news business and have friends and family still working in it, so I am very familiar with this.
But reading the article is sounds more like the reasoning behind the decision was that any monkey who can hold an iPhone, can bring in coverage. You no longer need one of those overpaid and obsolete photographers, let alone a whole department, because technology has evolved to the point that anyone who can aim a cellphone in the general direction of the action is going to turn in to Eddie Adams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Carter
But reading the article is sounds more like the reasoning behind the decision was that any monkey who can hold an iPhone, can bring in coverage. You no longer need one of those overpaid and obsolete photographers, let alone a whole department, because technology has evolved to the point that anyone who can aim a cellphone in the general direction of the action is going to turn in to Eddie Adams.
I agree that if that is the reasoning behind the decision, then it is totally ridiculous.
I sense Senate hearings and floor speeches in both houses in the near future blaming apple for more job vanishing.
They must have been and will continue using freelance for stuff that needs close ups and quality like sports.
Nope, that headline has a positive tone for Apple. More likely: "Apple Causes Photographers to be Fired" Or "iFired: How Apple is Causing Layoffs in the Media"
I love it!
Nothing sad here.
Oh, I agree. I couldn't stop laughing at the "firing 28 people" part.
Not only do sports NEED no quality, sports NEED no coverage.
Sports are a useless waste of time, a distraction from what matters.
What matters in a democracy is to cover the subject matters that are relevant to policy decisions: war, environment, social issues, health care, conduct of government itself.
The press has degenerated to a reproduction of pre-spun news releases and insurance-adjuster "quality" images.
This is neither journalism not photography.
I wonder what Andy Ihnatko thinks of this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
NYTimes title?: Popularity of iPhone Camera Results In Mass Layoff of Professional Photographers
You're being too generous. You need to make them sound more responsible:
With smartphones, or camera-toting feature phones, being nearly ubiquitous, an increasing number of news outlets are turning to the pubic for immediate "on the scene" shots.