So you need to be an experienced professional photographer in order to use a DSLR, but you just need a few training weeks to use an iPhone? I thought the camera isn't what makes a photographer. Welcome to the "post-Mac" era. People who don't understand why I hate the "post-Mac" Apple so much, will realize in the coming years. Microsoft, in their most arrogant years, was like Bambi compared to the "post-Mac" Apple.
But then the question remains : who killed Bambi ? Well, I don't know, but I have the answer to the question : who killed Ronald Mc Donald ?
Credit : Giuseppe Venezianno sculpture, Venezia (not an iPhone shot ....)
It's local news coverage that will suffer here. Most newspapers use syndicated images and copy, particularly for national and international news. Im sure there were several great photographers who've been let go, and that's a mistake. But likely the staff was mostly semi-pro level (I'm guessing this based on my experience as a freelance photog with the Chicago Tribune). Still, I think they'll run into many cases where local news covered with an iphone will result in subpar photos that will not be run, where the dslr version would have made the cut.
This is interesting. If it's successful, the staff photographer and reporter job classifications could be morphing significantly. Or it could simply be another swan song of a large newspaper.
Has Andy Ihnatko weighed in on this, yet? Doesn't he work for the Sun-Times?
I suspect the report is a little dramatic for click bait. I'm sure the paper will be using professionals, just freelancers from now on ... and 'the training on iPhones' is an additional piece of news that placed along with the 'move to end the staff photographers' (i.e. use freelancers) makes the story read differently.
The way this article is written guaranteed a series of arguments over the merits of an iPhone camera versus a Canon D6 with a 300 mm IS, 2.8 lens (etc.). This succeeded in the way all news succeeds these days ... folks rise to the bait like trained carp :no:
There're plenty of freelance sports photographer and independent photo agency out there to fulfill that kind of details. This way, they only pay for the picture and not their own staffs pay, benefits etc.
That would be the more important consideration IMO. I don't think it has anything to do with DSLR vs iPhone but hiring freelancers or even licensing photos when they are needed. The iPhone 5 can take pretty good pictures as the samples here show:
When a reporter is on the scene, they can snap a photo, email it, have it corrected to see if it's good enough for print or more likely online publishing and email in the story too. Then they get the first views. If they need better photos, they can license them from a freelance photographer or hire one.
The iPhone is still quite bad at low light but this can improve in future models:
So you need to be an experienced professional photographer in order to use a DSLR, but you just need a few training weeks to use an iPhone? I thought the camera isn't what makes a photographer. Welcome to the "post-Mac" era. People who don't understand why I hate the "post-Mac" Apple so much, will realize in the coming years. Microsoft, in their most arrogant years, was like Bambi compared to the "post-Mac" Apple.
Apple still sells Macs. And they still want you to buy them.
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".
Given what Steven Soderbergh just said about studio execs; that they don't watch movies, you're probably not too far off.
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.
It would have made more sense to keep the photographers and to have fired the reporters. One thing the web has shown is that visual content is more important than prose.
Unfortunately, this is one of the most common trends in corporate America: combine two jobs into one in order to make the balance sheet look better in the short-term. Never mind that it's unlikely to have a positive impact on the products/services that the company is selling. Never mind that eliminating jobs on a regular basis is the ultimate boneheaded strategy when the largest segment of the American economy is the consumer economy, and the largest part of that consumer economy is the general workforce. But, yeah, most executives aren't paid to be smart these days. They're just paid to eliminate someone else's pay, not come up with ideas on how to grow the business.
It would have made more sense to keep the photographers and to have fired the reporters. One thing the web has shown is that visual content is more important than prose.
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.
It's probably a decision of cost management. 28 photographers at $60+ year plus benefits is probably just over $2M per year savings. So maybe it's not about a Pulitzer for the photographer, but rather cost saving for a industry struggling in the post-printed news age.
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.
on-call? Freelancers would take the pictures and then sell them to the news outlet. So as a freelancer, it would be my job to be on the scene as news was happening. No one to manage that process, no one being paid when news was not happening, and you drastically increase your pool of photographers.
Some of the points about the image quality required for use online at low resolutions are valid, but only if you have a good enough image in the first place.
The iPhone is a hugely useful tool for journalists but if you try to use one to zoom several hundred metres past a cordon of riot police, or to capture a usable image of a moving subject in low light then you're going to run into difficulties. There are some situations in which what you need, if you actually want a good image, is a pro-level camera in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.
Struckpaper is right. This is about downgrading photography.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs
So you need to be an experienced professional photographer in order to use a DSLR, but you just need a few training weeks to use an iPhone? I thought the camera isn't what makes a photographer. Welcome to the "post-Mac" era. People who don't understand why I hate the "post-Mac" Apple so much, will realize in the coming years. Microsoft, in their most arrogant years, was like Bambi compared to the "post-Mac" Apple.
But then the question remains : who killed Bambi ? Well, I don't know, but I have the answer to the question : who killed Ronald Mc Donald ?
Credit : Giuseppe Venezianno sculpture, Venezia (not an iPhone shot ....)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogJack
It will all end in tears.
Not necessarily ...
(same artist)
Just a little Easter egg I threw in.
Well spotted!
Has Andy Ihnatko weighed in on this, yet? Doesn't he work for the Sun-Times?
The way this article is written guaranteed a series of arguments over the merits of an iPhone camera versus a Canon D6 with a 300 mm IS, 2.8 lens (etc.). This succeeded in the way all news succeeds these days ... folks rise to the bait like trained carp :no:
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/25950/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
That would be the more important consideration IMO. I don't think it has anything to do with DSLR vs iPhone but hiring freelancers or even licensing photos when they are needed. The iPhone 5 can take pretty good pictures as the samples here show:
http://www.slashgear.com/iphone-5-camera-samples-take-on-pureview-and-more-13247430/
Here's a test by a photographer using an iPhone 5 and a Canon 5D:
http://www.redmondpie.com/camera-test-iphone-5-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii-professional-dslr-images/
When a reporter is on the scene, they can snap a photo, email it, have it corrected to see if it's good enough for print or more likely online publishing and email in the story too. Then they get the first views. If they need better photos, they can license them from a freelance photographer or hire one.
The iPhone is still quite bad at low light but this can improve in future models:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/157082-graphene-sensor-is-1000-times-more-sensitive-to-light-could-enable-ultra-low-light-photography
They can improve stabilisation, resolution and apps can take care of some other things:
http://mattebox.com/iphone/camera/index.html
Apple still sells Macs. And they still want you to buy them.
They're probably not all based in Chicago.
Given what Steven Soderbergh just said about studio execs; that they don't watch movies, you're probably not too far off.
In that case, hairs ure tine file hate Sir.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
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.
I'll just leave this here
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/
I agree, and therefore go to this site:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper
This is a mistake for at least two reasons.
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.
It's probably a decision of cost management. 28 photographers at $60+ year plus benefits is probably just over $2M per year savings. So maybe it's not about a Pulitzer for the photographer, but rather cost saving for a industry struggling in the post-printed news age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Surprising a paper still had staff photographers. Freelancers would probably be less expensive and more widely available.
Yes, and you would pay them by the print, not by the hour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
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.
on-call? Freelancers would take the pictures and then sell them to the news outlet. So as a freelancer, it would be my job to be on the scene as news was happening. No one to manage that process, no one being paid when news was not happening, and you drastically increase your pool of photographers.
The iPhone is a hugely useful tool for journalists but if you try to use one to zoom several hundred metres past a cordon of riot police, or to capture a usable image of a moving subject in low light then you're going to run into difficulties. There are some situations in which what you need, if you actually want a good image, is a pro-level camera in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.
Struckpaper is right. This is about downgrading photography.