Chicago Sun-Times Fires Photo Staff, Will Train Reporters to Use iPhones For Photos

[AustinIllini]

Studies have shown that people are more likely to read an article in the newspaper if there's a photo to go with that story. The better the photo, the more people read the story, and online that means more page views, which in turn means more ad revenue.

Studies also show people aren't reading newspapers anymore. It's a fact of life. I understand this entirely if the Sun-Times is trying to stay afloat. I'm not sure I share in the sentiment that this is in any way sad (Especially when compared to the newspaper industry as a whole).

 

[sethypoo]

A well known photographer once told me that the camera doesn't matter, it's the person taking the photo that makes the difference. This photographer told me that they would work with an instant disposable camera if that was the tool available to them.

 

[Drunken Master]

Studies also show people aren't reading newspapers anymore. It's a fact of life. I understand this entirely if the Sun-Times is trying to stay afloat. I'm not sure I share in the sentiment that this is in any way sad (Especially when compared to the newspaper industry as a whole).

They still read the stories online.

 

[Michael CM1]

Studies also show people aren't reading newspapers anymore. It's a fact of life. I understand this entirely if the Sun-Times is trying to stay afloat. I'm not sure I share in the sentiment that this is in any way sad (Especially when compared to the newspaper industry as a whole).

Go find anything of substance and it probably came from a reputable news source like AP, CNN, etc. @joeblow wasn't sitting on the Capitol steps to tell us a senator died. No, that was the Washington press corps.

As much as I complaina bout DRM on movies, I can't imagine how much better off the news industry would be if you had to pay or be allowed access after an ad to any news story. Like if you couldn't copy and paste the text or snap a screenshot. I'm not saying I think that's the way it should go, but I get the rationale behind DRM at times.

 

[nburwell]

As a hobbyist photographer, this is an absolutely awful move. While the iPhone is great in the social world to share photos you take instantly on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. It does not and should not replay DSLR's in the professional world (aka photojournalism). I'm an NYT digital subscriber, and I pay $15/month not only for the articles, but the photography as well. I would expect that if they did the same thing the Chicago Sun-Times did, they would lower the monthly subsciption price as well. While I understand this is a cost cutting move, it's still terrible move nonetheless.

While I love my iPhone for everything it does (including the images I take with it), it will never replace my DSLR.

 

[HMF]

iphoto editors

That is just ridiculous.

Can't believe that a professional newspaper is firing a professional team with professional equipment and work with a consumer product and amateur team.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

As a professional photographer, this causes a lot of concern not only from the business side of photography but photography as a craft.

The iPhone does take decent photographs on the fly but if compelling images are needed, a professional photographer with years of photographic experience and training is needed.

Frankly, I am not surprised about this considering how the craft of photography has been slowly swirling down the toilet the past few years. No one gives a rat's tail about quality these days and settles for the mediocrity of cell phone pictures.

If it's a choice between good and better, people generally won't pay more for better if they can get good enough.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

Go find anything of substance and it probably came from a reputable news source like AP, CNN, etc. @joeblow wasn't sitting on the Capitol steps to tell us a senator died. No, that was the Washington press corps.

As much as I complaina bout DRM on movies, I can't imagine how much better off the news industry would be if you had to pay or be allowed access after an ad to any news story. Like if you couldn't copy and paste the text or snap a screenshot. I'm not saying I think that's the way it should go, but I get the rationale behind DRM at times.

Most people wouldn't pay for what they perceive to be dishonest reporting:

A new Gallup poll on perceived honesty and ethical standards found that journalists possess a dismally low rating. When asked to rate a variety of professions on having "very high" to "very low" honesty and ethical standards, pollsters found that below 25 percent of Americans have positive feelings about the honesty of journalists. The results are from a survey distributed between November 26-29.

In fact, journalists had a lower rating than bankers, chiropractors and psychiatrists. On the other hand, journalists had a higher rating than lawyers, senators, members of Congress, and cars salespeople.

The results are consistent with findings of polls past. In August, a Daily Kos poll showed that a staggering 78 percent of individuals said they possess an unfavorable view of the political press. A Gallup poll released in July found that confidence in television news hit a new low, with just 21 percent of adults saying they possessed a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the institution.​

HuffPo

 

[ctdonath]

A well known photographer once told me that the camera doesn't matter, it's the person taking the photo that makes the difference. This photographer told me that they would work with an instant disposable camera if that was the tool available to them.

That's the make-do attitude of the professional. Use what you've got to achieve the intended results. Whatever tools you've got, make 'em work. If that means getting visuals with charcoal on fishwrap, so be it - they'll make it work.

That doesn't mean said professional will opt for lousy equipment. A pro will recognize his limits, and choose tools which are at least that good, lest a situation arise within his limits but outside the tool's. Fast up time, deep zoom, high optical resolution, rapid sequencing, extensive color depth ... all factors a photo pro can easily make use of to achieve superior pictures, but which a mere iPhone (as good as it is) can't do. That's why high-end cameras are used, which not every mortal can make optimal use of.

Your source could, indeed, do marvelous work with just a instant disposable camera. That's why he's a "professional", able to take tools to their limits and work around their limitations. He'll get better results with that POS camera than almost any non-pro photographer than the latter with a premium high-end rig. That's why professional photographers are used, doing better than most any other mortal can achieve.

If we were talking some podunk town fishwrap spending too much for a photog covering minor incidents, we could understand downsizing accordingly. But we're not: we're talking a major national newspaper; maybe not quite so many photographers are needed, but getting rid of all of them is just nuts.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

If we were talking some podunk town fishwrap spending too much for a photog covering minor incidents, we could understand downsizing accordingly. But we're not: we're talking a major national newspaper; maybe not quite so many photographers are needed, but getting rid of all of them is just nuts.

Heck, maybe the Sun-Times is onto something. Even in podunk towns, people have iPhones, Galaxys, etc. to shoot news as it happens. There's a lot to be said for relying on crowds to snap mediocre, but serviceable, photos of newsworthy events instead of hoping a pro happens by and has the time to get set up while things are happening. (I love my Nikon D7000, but since it takes time to install a lens, occasionally the P&S I also keep in the bag is used to take a poorer quality, but timelier pic).

Is it worth keeping pros on staff just for photo ops?

 

[xdhd350]

To even say this suggests you..

1) Don't know what really makes DSLR camera pictures so high quality (hint: it's not something you can "bolt-onto" a camera phone).

2) Are completely missing the point that part of what makes the pictures high quality is the talent of the people taking them. This is another something you can't buy for an iPhone.​

Those are two statements that hit the nail exactly on the head. I love my iPhone and the camera can do some respectable shots... but it's not an all situation camera which is what a lot of naive people don't realize.

The second point is also true and should be obvious. Different people have different natural talents. If it was that easy, I'd be a professional (insert sport or occupation here), but the fact is, it's not easy. Professionals make it look easy.

Here's a recent example of a shot you WON"T get unless you have a good camera and a natural talent for capturing the essence of a story.

(Credit: AP Photo Sue Ogrock)

 

[Truss Wrod]

:SARCASM MODE ON: Hey. Why stop at the snappers? Fire the journalists. Use bloggers. Sales people? Who needs 'em? Just switch the revenue model over to Google Ads. In fact there's not really any need for a managing editor's job.

 

[chirpie]

I can see that everyone has jumped on the iphone angle which admittidely sexes up the whole thing, but is this really whats happening?

You can buy a Sony Nex, Panasonic GX-1 or Olympus Pen micro four thirds camera, set it on auto and take amazing pictures without even trying nowadays. Surely it is more economical to send 1 reporter to a story who can take great high quality pictures with those type of camera's rather than 2 people?

The iphone cant do low light photography very well and cant zoom and cant be blown up a huge amount so I think its a red herring. You can only take quality pics on phones if you have great light. Thats something that you just dont have most of the time hence real SLR's.

But these compact camera's dont need a full time photographer to do the job. The way the newspaper is thinking is if bloggers can writes stories and use these cameras then why cant their writers?

Just like lots of artistry alot of the things that made it so special was how technical it was to achieve a basic thing. It was a big deal to shoot a decent picture in 1971, and then get it processed. Now I can shoot 100's of shots with perfect clarity, fix them in snap seed or pixelmator and print them on my own at home. No messy chemicals, no big deal. Thats how it is right now. Everyone just has to deal with reality.

EVEN IF the person on the scene had a dual degree in journalism and photography, experience in the field in both, and had all of that equipment on hand...

... both will suffer. If you're doing it right, you're specifically focusing on one and not the other at any one time. When I shoot video with my DSLR as the main activity, I'm framing it differently in my mind than if I'm trying to shoot for still. I don't switch back and forth mentally on a whim, and this is true for most people who try to multi-task. (No, I don't do it for a living, more of a semi-pro hobbyist.)

Multi-tasking is evil, and ironically, studies show that those who actively try to do more of it, progressively become worse at it.

I just have a lack of respect for organizations who take the stance of "Eh, good enough." While we'll never know, I wonder just how much the bottom line was hurting VS netting more overall profit? Sometimes this stuff can become it's own self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Dranix]

Also, there are TONS of camera lens accessories for the iPhone and they produce DSLR (if not BETTER than DSLR) quality.

While I agree to some of your points this one is ridiculous - iPhone cam is as far from a modern dslr in picture quality as a polaroid to a MF-back. They don't even play in the same league.

 

[Michael CM1]

EVEN IF the person on the scene had a dual degree in journalism and photography, experience in the field in both, and had all of that equipment on hand...

... both will suffer. If you're doing it right, you're specifically focusing on one and not the other at any one time. When I shoot video with my DSLR as the main activity, I'm framing it differently in my mind than if I'm trying to shoot for still. I don't switch back and forth mentally on a whim, and this is true for most people who try to multi-task. (No, I don't do it for a living, more of a semi-pro hobbyist.)

Multi-tasking is evil, and ironically, studies show that those who actively try to do more of it, progressively become worse at it.

I just have a lack of respect for organizations who take the stance of "Eh, good enough." While we'll never know, I wonder just how much the bottom line was hurting VS netting more overall profit? Sometimes this stuff can become it's own self-fulfilling prophecy.

I can also tell you that in my limited experience actually reporting, it can be hard to count on getting a photo AND actually reporting. I use my iPhone to record interviews. It's hard to take a photo at the same time. So if it's a press conference situation, you literally can't take a picture of a PIO speaking and record what's going on.

As for sporting events, there is no such thing as a good place to be for writing stuff down for a story and taking a photo. At high school football games, we're up in press boxes writing down stats. You can't get good photos unless you are on the darn sideline.

So what we end up doing with reporters sometimes taking photos that are basically "we have this photo instead of no photo" is just fine. I took a photo a couple of weeks ago with my iPhone for a Q&A. The photo editor gave me a tip and the photo turned out much better than I would've thought without the tip.

And did someone really claim that iPhone pictures can be made better than DSLR with some accessories? No. Just no. Sticking a keyboard on my iPad won't make it more powerful than my quad-core 12GB of RAM iMac. Just no.

 

[quasibinaer]

There used to be a day when one would pull up to a gas station and there would be a person to fill your tank, check your oil, clean the windshield and check the tires for air. Why don't we see this anymore, well, we just don't want to pay for it. The same may be for high quality professionally presented photos from a news organization.

That´s because you can do it yourself well enough. Same goes for mowing the lawn, taking out the trash or repairing your bike. If you´ve got the time and the ability, you can do it.
It´s a different thing with photography, though. You don´t become a photographer by walking into bestbuy, buy a mac, photoshop and 1000$ (or 15000$, doesn´t matter) worth of photo equipment. It takes skill, dedication, instinct, experience and a few other things that don´t grow on trees.

Publishing companies and newspapers know that. But they fail to get their priorities straight. First in line should be the reader, so you´d want good content to keep them on. Good content comes through various efforts, one of them being experience. Experience is a rare quality with humans and thus needs to be paid accordingly. You´d want experienced humanoids to wander about your newsroom. And it´s not like most (photo)journalists get paid a fortune - it´s enough to sustain yourself, maybe even have a family or a house. That´s with a regular staff position, though. Freelance work doesn´t pay as regularly and often not as well.

I do speak from experience here. I´m a professional freelance photojournalist, mostly working for a daily newspaper in the area. I had a colleague and friend who used to work 22 to 24 days each month, usually far north of 9 or 10 hours per day. He had a wife and two children to support. In the end, he wasn´t even able to pay for his health insurance (which is much cheaper here than in the US) and eventually died from a simple infection at age 46.

Yeah, freelancing. :|

 

[demodave]

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


A day after the Chicago Sun-Times fired the entirety of its 28-person photo staff, Chicago media critic Robert Feder (via Cult of Mac) is reporting that the newspaper is training its reporters in iPhone photography to produce the photo content the paper requires.

Article Link: Chicago Sun-Times Fires Photo Staff, Will Train Reporters to Use iPhones For Photos

This is an absolutely ridiculous decision and is a smack in the face to photojournalists. I agree with what many others have already said: there is art and technique to photojournalism, and as much as I do love that my iPhone puts a pretty nice camera in my pocket, it cannot replace a real camera. It's takes space, distance and volume to bend light. The reason telephotos are so big and the reason lenses for dark-light image capture are so big is that they need to be. The CMOS sensors may not need to be huge, and the post-processing will surely all be digital, but it's no good if you can't get the light onto the sensor.

This seems like a really dumb-assed financial decision. It's also just plain truly sad.

A better choice might be to "cut the cord" and eliminate *paper* in your newspaper, but I don't think the world is quite ready for that yet. (We're getting there, though, I hope.)

 

[alexgowers]

If a old fashioned newspaper wants to be modern maybe they should look at a more modern format than newspaper?

This is the epitome of 'cutting your nose off to spite your face' !

 

[quasibinaer]

If a old fashioned newspaper wants to be modern maybe they should look at a more modern format than newspaper?

This is the epitome of 'cutting your nose off to spite your face' !

Our paper is already making the transition - or at least taking steps in that direction. We have two app-based editions for tablets (iOS/Android) that are richer in content, i.e. you get videos, slideshows and so on. They also feature a handy PDF version of the days paper as well.
We´re far from having a stable solution that satisfies all readers (who are older than 40 on average) and I believe we won´t get that until about 2020. Also, people still like the printed version. It´s not like this mode of delivery is or will be suddenly out of fashion...

 

[rGiskard]

Seems like reasonable enough move. Phone cameras are a better fit for their level of journalism than pro photographers with DSLRs.

 

[fivedots]

They still read the stories online.

And online news has yet to prove itself as a sustainable business model. Ad supported does not generate enough revenue and paywalls force people to go elsewhere; for the most part there are too many other places to get the same news.

We've set a bad precedent that online equals free in many areas. This has to rectify itself at some point, but we're not there yet. We can only go so long before a revenue model needs to be in place.

I love photography and photographers, but the reality is that the Sun-Times did what they had to do to stay afloat.

 

[truettray]

On one hand it's cool that the iPhone camera could even be considered to replace a DSLR in the professional world. On the other hand, this was the wrong move for The Sun. 28 people are being told to take a hike... not only is it sad, it's frankly insulting to these professional photographers... to all professional photographers really.

 

[glutenenvy]

My guess is that if they get people to quit it will be cheaper than firing them. I am also speculating that as a whole it is cheaper in total costs to fire photography staff then it is to fire the reporting staff. If it closes in several months, we should be safe to assume that was the reasoning.

 

[SeaFox]

2) Also completely correct, but entirely beside the point, and exactly why they're *TRAINING* their reporters. A pro with an iPhone will almost always end up with a better picture than a rookie with a DSLR, because a good photo is almost always more dependent on the photographer than the camera.

Training can improve things, I will agree. But Art is only part training. The majority of it is talent and practice (experience). These reporters will likely have neither. Learning to take a good photograph is something your do in high school and college, not when you're already on the job. That's the level of proficiency you're supposed to be at before you start getting paid for it, and it's what those laid-off (they weren't "fired") photographers did while the reporters were supposedly learning to write professionally to do the story side of the equation.

A well known photographer once told me that the camera doesn't matter, it's the person taking the photo that makes the difference. This photographer told me that they would work with an instant disposable camera if that was the tool available to them.

I agree with this. Too often I see people walking around with $3000 DSLRs who think they're photographers when the ones really making the pictures look good are camera firmware programmers that wrote the "AUTO" setting algorythms and the folks at Adobe who coded Photoshop.

Can't believe that a professional newspaper is firing a professional team with professional equipment and work with a consumer product and amateur team.

With the way the news stories themselves are becoming less and less professional, maybe this is just the other areas playing catch-up.

:SARCASM MODE ON: Hey. Why stop at the snappers? Fire the journalists. Use bloggers. Sales people? Who needs 'em? Just switch the revenue model over to Google Ads. In fact there's not really any need for a managing editor's job.

This is already happening. The neat part is when there's bad information reported by the news outlet they can just blame the "network of viewers like YOU" for giving them the bad info, when the real problem is the news organization was too cheap to pay for reporters in the locations it needed to cover the news.

BTW, sales people will be one of the last to go. They are go good at what they do they will manage to sell themselves as being what keeps the entire business afloat even after they fire all the staff and there is no longer an actual paper for the marketers to sell.

 

[RobertMartens]

I never buy their paper nor go to their website, but now I'm for sure never going to support their business.

You just said you never were their customer. So I guess you never cared about quality photographs in the first place.