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…
It's newspapers being cheap. The Seattle Times has decided to initiate a pay wall and they also have very few in house "home grown" articles. Most everything else is AP stories. So, I'm not surprised that the Chicago paper fired all of its staff photogs. It's all about the dollars saved.
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.
Not just sports photography. Any subject moving faster than a walking pace or in less than daylight is going to be a poor photo when it's a camera phone in the hands of someone also trying to be a reporter at the same time. They'd get better photos giving them $200 point-and-shoot cameras. I'm not saying an iPhone can't take good photos. It's possible to get great photos with an iPhone. But you'd get much more consistent results with a dedicated camera, even a mid-range point and shoot one (larger stabilized lens, better in low light, far less shutter lag, stronger flash, etc).
Not just sports photography. Any subject moving faster than a walking pace or in less than daylight is going to be a poor photo when it's a camera phone in the hands of someone also trying to be a reporter at the same time. They'd get better photos giving them $200 point-and-shoot cameras. I'm not saying an iPhone can't take good photos. It's possible to get great photos with an iPhone. But you'd get much more consistent results with a dedicated camera, even a mid-range point and shoot one (larger stabilized lens, better in low light, far less shutter lag, stronger flash, etc).
I agree with your comments and I think the article is not complete, since there is no way you can shoot sports photos with iPhone 5, I have tried! Chicago will probably use some freelancers to obtain the action packed moving pictures and you can use iPhone 5 for the others. Richness of colour may also be problem for iPhone 5 versus dSLR.
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.
Not to say the topics you mention aren't important, but like it or not is' the sports that probably drive a pretty good chuck of their circulation volume. Lose the sports and you'll likely lose all those other things you want because the newspaper would go out of business
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.
Re: Subscriptions.
My parents never had a newspaper subscription when I was growing up. Now that our local paper, the Wilmington News Journal, offers an online only subscription though my parents pay for an online subscription and read the news on their iPads all the time. I subscribe to the Economist, because I wanted access to their website. The magazine comes with the online subscription but I almost never look at them and they just pile up in my office until I put them in a box in the attic. If they offered an online only subscription for even a little less though I would definitely switch.
Anyways, my point is just because you don't see the paper on people's front step anymore doesn't mean everyone stopped paying for the local news. My parents are a great example of people who never paid for news before and now they do.
I also think (well, hope) that more local papers will switch to a model like the Tampa Bay Times. It's run as a non-profit. This leads to 1, excellent unbiased coverage and 2, less focus on the bottom line.
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.
One megapixel is probably sufficient for newspaper resolution. By your reasoning, that as long as you have enough pixels you are fine (yes, I noted your caveats about light and motion), then they should have fired the photographers about 8 years ago. But they didn't, which suggests that there is far more to it than that. And what is a reporter to do? "Councilman, before they cart you off to jail could you step over here into the light and stand still so I can get your photo to put on the front page of my newspaper?"
I'm not even saying that firing the photographers was necessarily a bad decision. The economics may have required such a drastic measure. Thinking that a camera phone in the hands of a reporter is a suitable replacement is where they fail. Technology can make an average person a better photographer (despite the photography purist's arguments posted here), but a camera phone, including the iPhone, doesn't really yet have enough of that technology to make up for a professional publication not having dedicated photographers.
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.
Not
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.
Sports is near real time on their websites. Sports sells and people want to SEE plays and greatness. Print is 10 hours late at best. Compare to seeing a high quality image of the overweight, pockmarked, slobbering, red faced, rambling, nut case of a politician vs. the focused intensity of the ugliest of athlete draining the three at the buzzer. Which matters in pictures? How's C-SPAN doing with viewers?
Perhaps a challenge for democracy is seeing pretty and not listening then thinking? High quality images solve that?
It's a business and the freelance market will fill the void.
I agree with your comments and I think the article is not complete, since there is no way you can shoot sports photos with iPhone 5, I have tried! Chicago will probably use some freelancers to obtain the action packed moving pictures and you can use iPhone 5 for the others. Richness of colour may also be problem for iPhone 5 versus dSLR.
Really sad news.
There are lots of situations where an iPhone won't do. Sports is the main one, of course. But anything that requires a long lens or a narrow depth of field must be post processed and the results are very mixed.It is great that journalists are taught to use their iPhones - they are very capable cameras, but it is sad to see Photography as a valued profession so diminished. I am also troubled at how news gathering is becoming a one person job. And even journalists are losing their jobs. Increasingly all news comes from one very narrow limited source.
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.
Most of these idiots think they can be an action sports photographer, shoot pics for Playboy and become multi-millionaires.
They might go for syndicated content rather than maintain their own staff.
90% of my local rag is AP and syndicated. If I feel the need to see images of new, I don't wait for the 5 a.m. delivery of the Dallas Morning News that was inked 5 hours prior.
But then, professional photography is not a money-making business except for those lucky few. The average professional photographer earns $30,000 a year for the rest of their life - from which they have to spend much on equipment to keep up to date with technology. Even a school teacher can make much more. Those photographers that augment their income by teaching others photography are the ones who are most likely to earn a more livable income.
In the hands of a pro, the iPhone can do a very credible job as a camera. Some pros even publish books of photos taken with their iPhone.
In the News business, amateurs have the upper hand on the pros since they are on the scene immediately. Pros have to travel and are thus often there late.
Reporters beware, you're next. Who needs professional writers when the blogosphere is available? Professionals Not Needed. No wonder newspapers are failing, they are run by bean counters, not edittors. Bye bye Sun Times. You will soon follow the Daily News and Herald into obscurity.
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.
[...]
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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…
Love it!
Too soon? Nah, but I think I'm going to hell for laughing at this.
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.
Not just sports photography. Any subject moving faster than a walking pace or in less than daylight is going to be a poor photo when it's a camera phone in the hands of someone also trying to be a reporter at the same time. They'd get better photos giving them $200 point-and-shoot cameras. I'm not saying an iPhone can't take good photos. It's possible to get great photos with an iPhone. But you'd get much more consistent results with a dedicated camera, even a mid-range point and shoot one (larger stabilized lens, better in low light, far less shutter lag, stronger flash, etc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
Not just sports photography. Any subject moving faster than a walking pace or in less than daylight is going to be a poor photo when it's a camera phone in the hands of someone also trying to be a reporter at the same time. They'd get better photos giving them $200 point-and-shoot cameras. I'm not saying an iPhone can't take good photos. It's possible to get great photos with an iPhone. But you'd get much more consistent results with a dedicated camera, even a mid-range point and shoot one (larger stabilized lens, better in low light, far less shutter lag, stronger flash, etc).
I agree with your comments and I think the article is not complete, since there is no way you can shoot sports photos with iPhone 5, I have tried! Chicago will probably use some freelancers to obtain the action packed moving pictures and you can use iPhone 5 for the others. Richness of colour may also be problem for iPhone 5 versus dSLR.
Really sad news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
Not
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.
Not to say the topics you mention aren't important, but like it or not is' the sports that probably drive a pretty good chuck of their circulation volume. Lose the sports and you'll likely lose all those other things you want because the newspaper would go out of business
Re: Subscriptions.
My parents never had a newspaper subscription when I was growing up. Now that our local paper, the Wilmington News Journal, offers an online only subscription though my parents pay for an online subscription and read the news on their iPads all the time. I subscribe to the Economist, because I wanted access to their website. The magazine comes with the online subscription but I almost never look at them and they just pile up in my office until I put them in a box in the attic. If they offered an online only subscription for even a little less though I would definitely switch.
Anyways, my point is just because you don't see the paper on people's front step anymore doesn't mean everyone stopped paying for the local news. My parents are a great example of people who never paid for news before and now they do.
I also think (well, hope) that more local papers will switch to a model like the Tampa Bay Times. It's run as a non-profit. This leads to 1, excellent unbiased coverage and 2, less focus on the bottom line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunabku
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.
One megapixel is probably sufficient for newspaper resolution. By your reasoning, that as long as you have enough pixels you are fine (yes, I noted your caveats about light and motion), then they should have fired the photographers about 8 years ago. But they didn't, which suggests that there is far more to it than that. And what is a reporter to do? "Councilman, before they cart you off to jail could you step over here into the light and stand still so I can get your photo to put on the front page of my newspaper?"
I'm not even saying that firing the photographers was necessarily a bad decision. The economics may have required such a drastic measure. Thinking that a camera phone in the hands of a reporter is a suitable replacement is where they fail. Technology can make an average person a better photographer (despite the photography purist's arguments posted here), but a camera phone, including the iPhone, doesn't really yet have enough of that technology to make up for a professional publication not having dedicated photographers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
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.
Yes, the Paparrazi syndrome.
Sports is near real time on their websites. Sports sells and people want to SEE plays and greatness. Print is 10 hours late at best. Compare to seeing a high quality image of the overweight, pockmarked, slobbering, red faced, rambling, nut case of a politician vs. the focused intensity of the ugliest of athlete draining the three at the buzzer. Which matters in pictures? How's C-SPAN doing with viewers?
Perhaps a challenge for democracy is seeing pretty and not listening then thinking? High quality images solve that?
It's a business and the freelance market will fill the void.
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
I agree with your comments and I think the article is not complete, since there is no way you can shoot sports photos with iPhone 5, I have tried! Chicago will probably use some freelancers to obtain the action packed moving pictures and you can use iPhone 5 for the others. Richness of colour may also be problem for iPhone 5 versus dSLR.
Really sad news.
There are lots of situations where an iPhone won't do. Sports is the main one, of course. But anything that requires a long lens or a narrow depth of field must be post processed and the results are very mixed.It is great that journalists are taught to use their iPhones - they are very capable cameras, but it is sad to see Photography as a valued profession so diminished. I am also troubled at how news gathering is becoming a one person job. And even journalists are losing their jobs. Increasingly all news comes from one very narrow limited source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
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.
Most of these idiots think they can be an action sports photographer, shoot pics for Playboy and become multi-millionaires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB
They must have been and will continue using freelance for stuff that needs close ups and quality like sports.
They might go for syndicated content rather than maintain their own staff.
90% of my local rag is AP and syndicated. If I feel the need to see images of new, I don't wait for the 5 a.m. delivery of the Dallas Morning News that was inked 5 hours prior.
But then, professional photography is not a money-making business except for those lucky few. The average professional photographer earns $30,000 a year for the rest of their life - from which they have to spend much on equipment to keep up to date with technology. Even a school teacher can make much more. Those photographers that augment their income by teaching others photography are the ones who are most likely to earn a more livable income.
In the hands of a pro, the iPhone can do a very credible job as a camera. Some pros even publish books of photos taken with their iPhone.
In the News business, amateurs have the upper hand on the pros since they are on the scene immediately. Pros have to travel and are thus often there late.
Who you callin, "these idiots"?
News reporters as one man bands with their own self-contained camera and data uplink. Reminds me of Max Headroom or the reporter from Mass Effect 3.
This is a mistake for at least two reasons.
[...]
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.
[...]
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.