The news is meant to be objective. For those purposes, all you need is photos that are sharp, clear and pointed in the right direction. You need technical excellence not artistic excellence. And there was always going to be a time come when the technology handled that side of things itself.
But it will be a much longer time before technology takes artistic photos by itself so that would be the kind of job I would look for next if I was these guys.
What a crock of sh**! Objective? What is objective?
WIth your definition of photography, we might as well post a Google Earth satellite picture of the area of the event with each article. Heck the f-ing camera is pointed in the right direction, right?
You really showed that you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO CLUE about photography. You can point the camear 100 times in "the right direction" and show a different face of a similar event. That's (on a non-political level) wedding photographers get paid upwards of $10k for shooting a wedding, even though uncle Joe is also there "pointing the camera in the right direction" (as if there were a wrong direction during a wedding).
Yet, the photographer (if s/he is worth the money being paid) will tell a quite different story of the even than all the uncle Joe's and auntie Jane's combined.
Sometimes a bloody street shows more reality than someone pointing a gun. Both depict the same reality, but the dude pointing the gun may look like a hero, while the blood on the street may show what a crime that guy perpetrated. What's objective?
It is the reporting that tells a story, and truth, if such a thing exists outside of very long historical contexts, is something that is revealed by combining many, competing perspectives reporting on the same events.
That's why people taking useless pictures just to fill a blank on a page, and tons of newspapers printing the same syndicated articles are the beginning of the end of a functioning democracy: there is no truth, because the number of competing perspectives on a particular story is approaching a number between one and zero (because enough relevant stories aren't even reported anymore, and the rest is regurgitated newswire content without independent correspondents reporting on location.).
Articles say businesses are struggling under the new health care requirements, that they will have to let some employees go in to maintain the current coverage for the other employees. The Sun-Times appears to have done just that with their professional photographers, whom they have deemed least important to the company. Doing away with professionals is becoming common. That's how the garment buildings in Bangladesh are built. They literally, don't stand the test of time!
Total b.s. Most aspects of Obamacare don't even come into play until at least 2014 and most provisions start later. And in a large organization like a big-city newspaper, Obamacare, with a few small exceptions, doesn't provide anything that a corporate or union health care plan isn't already providing, aside from being able to keep your kids insured, transferability if you change jobs and the insurance companies no longer able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. In fact, in some cases, it provides less, because "Cadillac plans" are going to be taxed (absurd IMO, since this will transfer costs from the corporation to individuals).
Where Obamacare will cost companies are those who aren't providing health insurance today but must do so under the new regulations, although I suspect that most will elect to pay the fine, rather than providing insurance. My understanding is that for individuals, the tax penalty is going to only be around $90 a year, so the new rules are not going to force very many self-employed individuals or young corporate employees who don't elect to take healthcare coverage from their employer to buy insurance if they don't already have it, which is also absurd, because the whole system was supposed to be based upon getting young healthy people insured to "spread the risk" and lower the overall cost of insurance.
Whether Obamacare winds up reducing healthcare costs or not is open to question (I would have prioritized on regulating the corrupt practices of insurance companies and hospitals first, rather than getting everyone insured), but something has to be done because economists are predicting that within 25 years, the entire economic output of the country is going to be taken up by healthcare. Healthcare is the only business in this country where you can't ask the price before services are rendered. It also has the biggest dichotomy between what an individual pays and what the insurance companies pay. When I go for bloodwork, the price if I didn't have insurance is $800. The insurance company pays the lab about $72 and I'm stuck for $25. So the lab can still make a profit at $97, but they want to charge individuals without insurance $800? And this is legal? No wonder we're in trouble.
Health insurance costs have gone up absurdly over the last 30 years. But corporations have offset that cost by essentially not providing raises in real terms in the last 30 years. And large corporations are making record profits (and paying minimal, if any, federal taxes.) I don't feel sorry for large businesses. As for small businesses, the problem is that certain aspects of Obamacare are being delayed until 2015. Small businesses were supposed to be able to offer multiple insurance plans from health exchanges, but they were only going to have to deal with the exchange, not with multiple insurance companies, with the supposed intention of reducing costs. But that's been delayed until 2015 and if the Red states have their way, it will never happen.
When I worked for a large media corporation in the 1980s, my share of the health insurance was $5 a month and I could go to any doctor I wanted. And it was a far better plan than the one I'm stuck with today, which costs me over $7K a year just for myself, not including co-pays and deductibles. Time will tell whether Obamacare improves things or makes them worse.
... fired its entire pool of 28 photographers on Friday, and plans to source future graphics from reporters who will be trained to capture print-worthy images with their iPhones.
Penny wise, pound foolish. You can tell reporters to take photos, but that doesn't make them photographers. Some things you're either born with or born without. I'm about 99.5% certain that the photographic "eye," that aesthetic talent, is something you can't completely learn. You can study it, you can learn all about composition and contrast, but your photos will still look like snapshots.
And it's not just technical. Good photographers can anticipate the peak moment and capture it. Which requires talent *and* experience. Good luck with all that.
Penny wise, pound foolish. You can tell reporters to take photos, but that doesn't make them photographers. ... Good photographers can anticipate the peak moment and capture it. Which requires talent *and* experience. Good luck with all that.
It's easy to blame the newspaper, but of course the real blame goes to US, who insist on consuming "free" news, and won't shell out a measly buck a week to pay for the reporting and photos.
Oh, you think a buck a week is going to be easy to collect? Tell that to all the public radio stations who are begging listeners to offer up a mere $50 a year for "membership". My local station recently had to fire its entire meteorology department.
The notion that internet sites can be sustainably supported by advertising seems to be proving false... the news is regurgitant, the photos are amateurish, the analysis is horse****, and eventually people will stop reading it entirely--thus the ad support will vanish. And society will be left with news reporting not much better than in the European dark ages. This leads to ignorance, and is exactly what the political and corporate titans want--an ignorant populace is so much easier to control than an enlightened one. We see it already, with the rise in religiosity.
It is just part of the pathetic and inexorable dumbing down of all graphical standards worldwide, and nobody cares.
Things just change in life.
There will still be people out there taking great photos with dedicated cameras, such as DSLRs.
Speaking up for the iPhone, it can come in really handy (fast) when you need a quick shot and the other person is still pulling out and configuring their DLSR.
Well, no more pulitzer's for photography for the Sun Times. There are obviously problems with traditional print media competing, but I'm not sure this is the solution.
If doing things more poorly and cheaper was going to save newspapers ... they would be saved already.
I can see the meeting from which this came. All the faux images on the powerpoint.
As usual, Apple chuggs along without any concept other than power or money.
Just like Steve Jobs doing a pitch. Control the image. Content ... with the right package no one will notice. Everyone who can afford Apple is a genious.
And to the person who said it was too bad. And then noted that android wasn't mentioned ... this si an apple promo.
Speaking up for the iPhone, it can come in really handy (fast) when you need a quick shot and the other person is still pulling out and configuring their DLSR.
P
That's not how a photojournalist gig works. You show up (often with two cameras around your neck) and you are ready to shoot from the second you set foot there. Once you are there you are ready to shoot. There isn't any time consuming DSLR configuration. That's not a factor. I guarantee a guy with a phone is not going to beat any photojournalist in a quickdraw contest.
Which reminds me of another thing: When I've had gigs shooting an event it's been continuous burst mode all the time. You shoot single mode with a phone and you get half the shots with eyes closed on a blink or some other dealkiller. If you don't take a lot of shots you're not covered, and if you can't get 30 shots in in that moment that only lasts 30 seconds you might not have any keepers.
Another thing is that those long zoom lenses aren't just for show. If a close-up of the newsmaker is the only thing they can use but you can't get within fifty feet of them a phone won't cut it. The lens adapters I've currently seen don't give anything near a gamechanging zoom except for the ones that are so bulky (and not easily swappable) that they defeat the purpose of not having brought a camera. Are they really going to be equipping all of these reporters in the field with suitable expensive iPhone lens adapters so they won't have to be standing 5 feet in front of the subject?
I think it's really about Sun Times just wanting to shave off some salaries. Any good photographer should be able to take a good pic with an iPhone (they don't need a class for that - ridiculous). If it wasn't about salaries then why didn't they just give them iPhones to use if they really wanted them to use iPhones? Of course it makes no sense since the photographers already have their own DSLRs. So, it has to be about cutting salaries/costs.
@apple ][ I feel your pain, I'm always hounding my own wife for taking videos of our kids that way. How the heck am I supposed to make those videos into a compilation for a DVD or mp4 when you do that?!! What's worse is I deal with people at work who took video that way & then later ask our IT department to help them convert it to horizontal. Pfuahahaha!!!! Sorry, you're hosed.
While the press vigorously defends itself from the encroachment of the government on it's rights, the press ravenously eats it's own; behind a dumpster in a side alley. This is shortsighted and another example of 21st century group-think. Instead of using photographers to enhance their content across ALL media, they fire 'em all… Hello, DSLR's shoot video and hi res stills for tv, web, mobile.. fired 'em, instead of saying "go get pix and video that'll pull people in and distinguish us from the crowd." Bah! they're "training" writers to use iphone cameras. Foolish cost cutting = suicide. Photographers are NOT anachronistic.
I shoot. Sometimes pro, usually as a hobby, almost never for news outlets. While I suppose you can get away with this, I think replacing real photogs with iPhones will prove to be a huge mistake.
I doubt they'll replace sports, but even for traditional stories a pro photog with a decent set of lenses simply can't be replaced with an iPhone. You pack better lenses into a connected device, great, you're good to go, but it'll be too big to be your phone. Probably the idea is to just get the story and photos done fast from one device. Might work, quality will drop though. It's disgusting one way or the other.
The photographers could get revenge by starting their own site that has just pictures for new stories and no words. It would probably be more popular these days.
The photographers could get revenge by starting their own site that has just pictures for new stories and no words. It would probably be more popular these days.
Something like this, which I like, also with the (discontinued) iPad app:
While the press vigorously defends itself from the encroachment of the government on it's rights, the press ravenously eats it's own; behind a dumpster in a side alley. This is shortsighted and another example of 21st century group-think. Instead of using photographers to enhance their content across ALL media, they fire 'em all… Hello, DSLR's shoot video and hi res stills for tv, web, mobile.. fired 'em, instead of saying "go get pix and video that'll pull people in and distinguish us from the crowd." Bah! they're "training" writers to use iphone cameras. Foolish cost cutting = suicide. Photographers are NOT anachronistic.
Next we fire all the reporters and let the public write the stories. We unfortunately will become just a nation of bloggers as Jobs feared. I'm starting to tire of the digital world.
Not only are we getting crap reporting these days, not they going to let those same crap reports trying and figure out how to take a picture with an iphone. I guess they will also being sending in their news reports via their iphones as well.
I sorry a large majority of people have no clue how to take pictures and even taking a picture which is relevant to want is going on. Case and point we had a small experimental plane crash where I live, the plan hit high tension power line and almost hit cars on the road before chasing and the local paper printed on stupid picture some person happen to take of the tail of the plain in the power line, online they posted some kid's phone video of him driving down the road taking about what he thought happen. There was not single profession picture of plane or fire cased by the plane.
I think you all will agree there are pictures which are done by professional which still are in everyone minds of important event in history. These pictures would not exist if it was not for the profession not so stupid person running around with a camera phone.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
The news is meant to be objective. For those purposes, all you need is photos that are sharp, clear and pointed in the right direction. You need technical excellence not artistic excellence. And there was always going to be a time come when the technology handled that side of things itself.
But it will be a much longer time before technology takes artistic photos by itself so that would be the kind of job I would look for next if I was these guys.
What a crock of sh**! Objective? What is objective?
WIth your definition of photography, we might as well post a Google Earth satellite picture of the area of the event with each article. Heck the f-ing camera is pointed in the right direction, right?
You really showed that you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO CLUE about photography. You can point the camear 100 times in "the right direction" and show a different face of a similar event. That's (on a non-political level) wedding photographers get paid upwards of $10k for shooting a wedding, even though uncle Joe is also there "pointing the camera in the right direction" (as if there were a wrong direction during a wedding).
Yet, the photographer (if s/he is worth the money being paid) will tell a quite different story of the even than all the uncle Joe's and auntie Jane's combined.
Sometimes a bloody street shows more reality than someone pointing a gun. Both depict the same reality, but the dude pointing the gun may look like a hero, while the blood on the street may show what a crime that guy perpetrated. What's objective?
It is the reporting that tells a story, and truth, if such a thing exists outside of very long historical contexts, is something that is revealed by combining many, competing perspectives reporting on the same events.
That's why people taking useless pictures just to fill a blank on a page, and tons of newspapers printing the same syndicated articles are the beginning of the end of a functioning democracy: there is no truth, because the number of competing perspectives on a particular story is approaching a number between one and zero (because enough relevant stories aren't even reported anymore, and the rest is regurgitated newswire content without independent correspondents reporting on location.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by kellya74u
Articles say businesses are struggling under the new health care requirements, that they will have to let some employees go in to maintain the current coverage for the other employees. The Sun-Times appears to have done just that with their professional photographers, whom they have deemed least important to the company. Doing away with professionals is becoming common. That's how the garment buildings in Bangladesh are built. They literally, don't stand the test of time!
Total b.s. Most aspects of Obamacare don't even come into play until at least 2014 and most provisions start later. And in a large organization like a big-city newspaper, Obamacare, with a few small exceptions, doesn't provide anything that a corporate or union health care plan isn't already providing, aside from being able to keep your kids insured, transferability if you change jobs and the insurance companies no longer able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. In fact, in some cases, it provides less, because "Cadillac plans" are going to be taxed (absurd IMO, since this will transfer costs from the corporation to individuals).
Where Obamacare will cost companies are those who aren't providing health insurance today but must do so under the new regulations, although I suspect that most will elect to pay the fine, rather than providing insurance. My understanding is that for individuals, the tax penalty is going to only be around $90 a year, so the new rules are not going to force very many self-employed individuals or young corporate employees who don't elect to take healthcare coverage from their employer to buy insurance if they don't already have it, which is also absurd, because the whole system was supposed to be based upon getting young healthy people insured to "spread the risk" and lower the overall cost of insurance.
Whether Obamacare winds up reducing healthcare costs or not is open to question (I would have prioritized on regulating the corrupt practices of insurance companies and hospitals first, rather than getting everyone insured), but something has to be done because economists are predicting that within 25 years, the entire economic output of the country is going to be taken up by healthcare. Healthcare is the only business in this country where you can't ask the price before services are rendered. It also has the biggest dichotomy between what an individual pays and what the insurance companies pay. When I go for bloodwork, the price if I didn't have insurance is $800. The insurance company pays the lab about $72 and I'm stuck for $25. So the lab can still make a profit at $97, but they want to charge individuals without insurance $800? And this is legal? No wonder we're in trouble.
Health insurance costs have gone up absurdly over the last 30 years. But corporations have offset that cost by essentially not providing raises in real terms in the last 30 years. And large corporations are making record profits (and paying minimal, if any, federal taxes.) I don't feel sorry for large businesses. As for small businesses, the problem is that certain aspects of Obamacare are being delayed until 2015. Small businesses were supposed to be able to offer multiple insurance plans from health exchanges, but they were only going to have to deal with the exchange, not with multiple insurance companies, with the supposed intention of reducing costs. But that's been delayed until 2015 and if the Red states have their way, it will never happen.
When I worked for a large media corporation in the 1980s, my share of the health insurance was $5 a month and I could go to any doctor I wanted. And it was a far better plan than the one I'm stuck with today, which costs me over $7K a year just for myself, not including co-pays and deductibles. Time will tell whether Obamacare improves things or makes them worse.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
... fired its entire pool of 28 photographers on Friday, and plans to source future graphics from reporters who will be trained to capture print-worthy images with their iPhones.
Penny wise, pound foolish. You can tell reporters to take photos, but that doesn't make them photographers. Some things you're either born with or born without. I'm about 99.5% certain that the photographic "eye," that aesthetic talent, is something you can't completely learn. You can study it, you can learn all about composition and contrast, but your photos will still look like snapshots.
And it's not just technical. Good photographers can anticipate the peak moment and capture it. Which requires talent *and* experience. Good luck with all that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
Penny wise, pound foolish. You can tell reporters to take photos, but that doesn't make them photographers. ... Good photographers can anticipate the peak moment and capture it. Which requires talent *and* experience. Good luck with all that.
It's easy to blame the newspaper, but of course the real blame goes to US, who insist on consuming "free" news, and won't shell out a measly buck a week to pay for the reporting and photos.
Oh, you think a buck a week is going to be easy to collect? Tell that to all the public radio stations who are begging listeners to offer up a mere $50 a year for "membership". My local station recently had to fire its entire meteorology department.
The notion that internet sites can be sustainably supported by advertising seems to be proving false... the news is regurgitant, the photos are amateurish, the analysis is horse****, and eventually people will stop reading it entirely--thus the ad support will vanish. And society will be left with news reporting not much better than in the European dark ages. This leads to ignorance, and is exactly what the political and corporate titans want--an ignorant populace is so much easier to control than an enlightened one. We see it already, with the rise in religiosity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Cotsis
It is just part of the pathetic and inexorable dumbing down of all graphical standards worldwide, and nobody cares.
Things just change in life.
There will still be people out there taking great photos with dedicated cameras, such as DSLRs.
Speaking up for the iPhone, it can come in really handy (fast) when you need a quick shot and the other person is still pulling out and configuring their DLSR.
P
If doing things more poorly and cheaper was going to save newspapers ... they would be saved already.
I can see the meeting from which this came. All the faux images on the powerpoint.
As usual, Apple chuggs along without any concept other than power or money.
Just like Steve Jobs doing a pitch. Control the image. Content ... with the right package no one will notice. Everyone who can afford Apple is a genious.
And to the person who said it was too bad. And then noted that android wasn't mentioned ... this si an apple promo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfisher
Speaking up for the iPhone, it can come in really handy (fast) when you need a quick shot and the other person is still pulling out and configuring their DLSR.
P
That's not how a photojournalist gig works. You show up (often with two cameras around your neck) and you are ready to shoot from the second you set foot there. Once you are there you are ready to shoot. There isn't any time consuming DSLR configuration. That's not a factor. I guarantee a guy with a phone is not going to beat any photojournalist in a quickdraw contest.
Which reminds me of another thing: When I've had gigs shooting an event it's been continuous burst mode all the time. You shoot single mode with a phone and you get half the shots with eyes closed on a blink or some other dealkiller. If you don't take a lot of shots you're not covered, and if you can't get 30 shots in in that moment that only lasts 30 seconds you might not have any keepers.
Another thing is that those long zoom lenses aren't just for show. If a close-up of the newsmaker is the only thing they can use but you can't get within fifty feet of them a phone won't cut it. The lens adapters I've currently seen don't give anything near a gamechanging zoom except for the ones that are so bulky (and not easily swappable) that they defeat the purpose of not having brought a camera. Are they really going to be equipping all of these reporters in the field with suitable expensive iPhone lens adapters so they won't have to be standing 5 feet in front of the subject?
Originally Posted by splintercottage
As usual, Apple chuggs along without any concept other than power or money.
Thanks for inserting this pointless lie.
I feel your pain, I'm always hounding my own wife for taking videos of our kids that way. How the heck am I supposed to make those videos into a compilation for a DVD or mp4 when you do that?!! What's worse is I deal with people at work who took video that way & then later ask our IT department to help them convert it to horizontal. Pfuahahaha!!!! Sorry, you're hosed.
bah!
While the press vigorously defends itself from the encroachment of the government on it's rights, the press ravenously eats it's own; behind a dumpster in a side alley. This is shortsighted and another example of 21st century group-think. Instead of using photographers to enhance their content across ALL media, they fire 'em all… Hello, DSLR's shoot video and hi res stills for tv, web, mobile.. fired 'em, instead of saying "go get pix and video that'll pull people in and distinguish us from the crowd." Bah! they're "training" writers to use iphone cameras. Foolish cost cutting = suicide. Photographers are NOT anachronistic.
I doubt they'll replace sports, but even for traditional stories a pro photog with a decent set of lenses simply can't be replaced with an iPhone. You pack better lenses into a connected device, great, you're good to go, but it'll be too big to be your phone. Probably the idea is to just get the story and photos done fast from one device. Might work, quality will drop though. It's disgusting one way or the other.
The photographers could get revenge by starting their own site that has just pictures for new stories and no words. It would probably be more popular these days.
Something like this, which I like, also with the (discontinued) iPad app:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/
Quote:
Originally Posted by owep
While the press vigorously defends itself from the encroachment of the government on it's rights, the press ravenously eats it's own; behind a dumpster in a side alley. This is shortsighted and another example of 21st century group-think. Instead of using photographers to enhance their content across ALL media, they fire 'em all… Hello, DSLR's shoot video and hi res stills for tv, web, mobile.. fired 'em, instead of saying "go get pix and video that'll pull people in and distinguish us from the crowd." Bah! they're "training" writers to use iphone cameras. Foolish cost cutting = suicide. Photographers are NOT anachronistic.
News 2013 style by the people for the people.
So your post here is an aberration?
Not only are we getting crap reporting these days, not they going to let those same crap reports trying and figure out how to take a picture with an iphone. I guess they will also being sending in their news reports via their iphones as well.
I sorry a large majority of people have no clue how to take pictures and even taking a picture which is relevant to want is going on. Case and point we had a small experimental plane crash where I live, the plan hit high tension power line and almost hit cars on the road before chasing and the local paper printed on stupid picture some person happen to take of the tail of the plain in the power line, online they posted some kid's phone video of him driving down the road taking about what he thought happen. There was not single profession picture of plane or fire cased by the plane.
I think you all will agree there are pictures which are done by professional which still are in everyone minds of important event in history. These pictures would not exist if it was not for the profession not so stupid person running around with a camera phone.