Read any newspapers lately? The quality of the writing is pretty close to that bar already.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Chicago Sun-Times Fires Photo Staff, Will Train Reporters to Use iPhones For Photos
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Read any newspapers lately? The quality of the writing is pretty close to that bar already.
I can see how this makes sense. An iPhone is a lot more versatile than a dslr. Why carry a huge camera and bunch of lenses in an enormous camera bag when you could just carry a teeny iPhone. And if anybody has ever looked at a newspaper they will know that the pictures look terrible anyway with cheap ink, cheap paper, and super low dpi. If I want to make serious art, I will use a dslr. But a pic in a newspaper, I don't care. And iPhone photos aren't really that bad anyways. Get over it.
Photo journalism is a capture once display many process. It makes sense to maintain photo journalism as a distinct asset. It also makes sense to have reporters and field producers use iPhones for snapshots, and that's what they are, as well as HD video content. Where are the apps for live retransmit of the audio and video feed? Where are the apps for a lapel mic to be transmitted with that feed?
Rocketman
Rocketman
Seriously, the comments here make me sad. How stupid are people?
They're not exchanging their photo staff for iPhones, they're cutting costs by purchasing quality photos from freelancers and having their journalists snap pictures with their phones when they can, as in for instance when interviewing a girl whose cat got lost or other pictures that can actually be taken with an iPhone without sacrificing anything that a full time photographer's salary wouldn't outweigh.
User content is ridiculously common these days, there's nothing saying it couldn't just as well come from the journalists themselves, and most of the time you've got freelance photographers at site that get the same pictures as the newspaper's photographer that they're trying to sell to the papers.
With the affordability of DSLRs and the quality of modern day camera phones, keeping on a full time photography staff seems pretty stupid for a local newspaper in a large city.
Or, to quote a friend of mine who used to be a full time employee for a newspaper but chose to freelance instead: "I'm making more money now, and shooting more interesting things than I got to before".
They're not exchanging their photo staff for iPhones, they're cutting costs by purchasing quality photos from freelancers and having their journalists snap pictures with their phones when they can, as in for instance when interviewing a girl whose cat got lost or other pictures that can actually be taken with an iPhone without sacrificing anything that a full time photographer's salary wouldn't outweigh.
User content is ridiculously common these days, there's nothing saying it couldn't just as well come from the journalists themselves, and most of the time you've got freelance photographers at site that get the same pictures as the newspaper's photographer that they're trying to sell to the papers.
With the affordability of DSLRs and the quality of modern day camera phones, keeping on a full time photography staff seems pretty stupid for a local newspaper in a large city.
Or, to quote a friend of mine who used to be a full time employee for a newspaper but chose to freelance instead: "I'm making more money now, and shooting more interesting things than I got to before".
I'm a retired newspaper editor - 6-day daily in a small town. I know the pressures on newspapers to keep that profit margin - and it's worse now with ad revenues steadily sliding. It was an effort to keep a photographer on the staff, much less 2 of them and always, always there was the management desire to give reporters cameras and get rid of the photographers. It doesn't surprise me in the least that this is a trend that will grow with time. I agree the iPhone, while a quality point and shoot, will never have the capabilities of a pro. Sad turn of events.
A couple of thoughts to add to this sorry story.
I have worked as a professional photographer for many years. As a 'general' photographer, I have worked in most areas of the craft. At various times I have worked alongside press photographers, but never AS a press photographer. That requires particular talents that are relatively rare.Theirs is a rough and tumble world that did not appeal to me. Make no mistake... press photography is not for the faint-hearted. Those people are tough cookies.
It is not just a question of of recording 'what is there'. The lucky shot that happens just in front of you. Certainly that is one aspect, but the really good press guys frequently set up their shots. They often arrange the components of their shot to tell the story with more punch.
They also combine some other hard-earned skills. Complete familiarity with their camera equipment, and its limitations; the single-minded determination to get their shot that is sometimes mistaken for arrogance; the rare ability to tell a compelling story without words.
As others have remarked, this newspaper is selling out its readers and advertisers. Replacing skilled operators with untrained wordsmiths who most likely have none of the above mentioned abilities is the path to bland slop.
One last fulmination in this little rant...
Good photography depends on the ability to SEE pictures before they are taken. A real photographer can produce pictures on almost any equipment, but his/her output is enhanced by quality cameras; his/her chances of success are greatly improved by using adaptable cameras that can handle difficult conditions.
Good wordsmiths create word-pictures that move beyond simple description of what happened. They are usually not visually aware... that is why they write, and are not photographers.
I have worked as a professional photographer for many years. As a 'general' photographer, I have worked in most areas of the craft. At various times I have worked alongside press photographers, but never AS a press photographer. That requires particular talents that are relatively rare.Theirs is a rough and tumble world that did not appeal to me. Make no mistake... press photography is not for the faint-hearted. Those people are tough cookies.
It is not just a question of of recording 'what is there'. The lucky shot that happens just in front of you. Certainly that is one aspect, but the really good press guys frequently set up their shots. They often arrange the components of their shot to tell the story with more punch.
They also combine some other hard-earned skills. Complete familiarity with their camera equipment, and its limitations; the single-minded determination to get their shot that is sometimes mistaken for arrogance; the rare ability to tell a compelling story without words.
As others have remarked, this newspaper is selling out its readers and advertisers. Replacing skilled operators with untrained wordsmiths who most likely have none of the above mentioned abilities is the path to bland slop.
One last fulmination in this little rant...
Good photography depends on the ability to SEE pictures before they are taken. A real photographer can produce pictures on almost any equipment, but his/her output is enhanced by quality cameras; his/her chances of success are greatly improved by using adaptable cameras that can handle difficult conditions.
Good wordsmiths create word-pictures that move beyond simple description of what happened. They are usually not visually aware... that is why they write, and are not photographers.
What a lot of rubbish, epecially the audio where we now have the situation after years of deluding ourselves that mp3 sounded great people who listen are actually buying vinyl and buying HD digital audio, mp3 is for people who would be satisfied with a photocopy of the mona lisa!
You can take great photos with an iphone but as others have said it doesn't have the capabilities of DSLR's. You can take your Chevy Volt round the Nurburgring but a Ferrari or Porsche or their ilk are the only way it should be done!http://cdn.macrumors.com/vb/images/smilies/smile.gif
Upper management strikes again lol.
This reminds me of a time in IT when it was all the rage to outsource on site IT over seas. It took years for them to realize the time and money lost in poor decisions like this. It's only been within the last few years that I've seen that bounce back to more companies hiring on an in house staff.
This reminds me of a time in IT when it was all the rage to outsource on site IT over seas. It took years for them to realize the time and money lost in poor decisions like this. It's only been within the last few years that I've seen that bounce back to more companies hiring on an in house staff.
Ok, I admit I haven't read the full article or the comments, but
WHAT?!
----------
Exactly!
WHAT?!
----------
Exactly!
I enjoy good photography, but I don't turn to the papers for it.
Yes, there were iconic pics produced by print media photos in the past, but this was because there was an infrastructure to distribute them.
Take the iconic Times Square kiss at the end of ww2, had there been iPhones then, we may have had that pic from 29 different angles, and probably in hi def video too; as it was, a lucky photog pressed his shutter a few times that day, and one if the shots was golden. Then the distribution infrastructure did the rest.
Because of the democratizing nature of high quality digital photography equipment, and no need for the expensive development, or restrictive distribution channels, we should get more icons (also more noise) rather than less.
In the old tech days, it made sense to send a team on site, one to snap a few pics and one to do the interviews and catch the text in notes. Afterward, the team also made sense while one wrote the story, the other developed the prints.
Nowadays, the journalist can capture the whole thing on video, and transcribe the text (eventually, this will be automated, and just require editing downward), and pic a still from the vid (or post an edited vid.)
The economy, simplicity, reliability, and decent quality of the equipment made the old ways, which offered no great advantage over the new ways, unsustainably expensive.
Yes, there were iconic pics produced by print media photos in the past, but this was because there was an infrastructure to distribute them.
Take the iconic Times Square kiss at the end of ww2, had there been iPhones then, we may have had that pic from 29 different angles, and probably in hi def video too; as it was, a lucky photog pressed his shutter a few times that day, and one if the shots was golden. Then the distribution infrastructure did the rest.
Because of the democratizing nature of high quality digital photography equipment, and no need for the expensive development, or restrictive distribution channels, we should get more icons (also more noise) rather than less.
In the old tech days, it made sense to send a team on site, one to snap a few pics and one to do the interviews and catch the text in notes. Afterward, the team also made sense while one wrote the story, the other developed the prints.
Nowadays, the journalist can capture the whole thing on video, and transcribe the text (eventually, this will be automated, and just require editing downward), and pic a still from the vid (or post an edited vid.)
The economy, simplicity, reliability, and decent quality of the equipment made the old ways, which offered no great advantage over the new ways, unsustainably expensive.
Great points. I really miss the "magic" analogue media produced. The iconic WWII image is a great example. Timing, iconic world events, the art and skill required in capturing the moment, and developing the images are important factors. Certainly digital photography has its place; it's easier and quicker than analogue and many devices have capable camera's. However, it's produced an over abundance of images, most uninspired (no offense meant). Not everyone is an Annie Leibovitz or Eddie Adams. The more we strip away the process, the less profound and emotional the results. Society needs to understand that speed and availability doesn't equate to quality.
This is what it boils down to - and it is highly subjective as to whether there is an advantage to the "old ways" or not. I think that there is, partly because I like stills and am not keen on video, partly for equipment limitation reasons, partly for the differing skill sets required in writing and photography and partly that in the interests of maintaining quality (ha!) and speed you don't want your writer messing around with a camera or your photographer trying to write something and missing the key shot - you want it to happen all at once and magically appear on a web page, complete in all its glory. But that ultimately is just my thoughts and my opinions.
While CST seem to think differently, it should be noted that CST is going to continue to make use of actual photographs, taken by DSLR-toting freelancers or sourced wire images.
The new equipment isn't up to scratch just yet. And I'm not sure about this video malarkey.
Actually you are way off, this is not akin to the analogue vs digital debate. This is more like instead of recording in a professional studio with real microphones placed at each instrument, that you record your next record in your living room using just the single microphone on a cassette deck capturing everything.
A camera phone simple does not have the resolution, depth of field, light sensitivity are image quality that is possible with an DSLR or even mirrorless camera. Think about it, instead of recording your image on a sensor the size of a 35 mm frame, you are recording on a sensor smaller than your pinky fingernail. Not to mention they lack any zoom, telephoto or wide angle abilities ...
DSLRs and SLRs are just a necessity for reporting, there no other kind of camera that can be as versitale as those two. Use addons with the iPhone? Good luck taking low light pictures in a conference room when sitting several meters away from stage. Let's not forget about weather. Can you really take pictures with your iPhone during a snowstorm or a tropical storm? A DSLR can. And let us not forget about battery life, can you snap 600 pictures+ with an iPhone on a single charge?
Even the best compact cameras (From the Leica M9, Sony RX1, 100S) is not enough for reporting, a phone will never be enough for at least a couple of decades.
----------
They technically do with addons but forget about using it indoors.
Even the best compact cameras (From the Leica M9, Sony RX1, 100S) is not enough for reporting, a phone will never be enough for at least a couple of decades.
----------
They technically do with addons but forget about using it indoors.
It's amazing how the stupid people always seem to be in charge.
This will be the death of them. Who wants to see photos of events taken on a wide angle phone camera. Unless the "reporter" is basically standing next to the event, the photo will be pretty useless.
And this is not the same as comparing digital to analog, it's comparing common sense to stupidity.
Also seems a lot of people in this forum understands photography about as well as those who made this bone headed decision.
This will be the death of them. Who wants to see photos of events taken on a wide angle phone camera. Unless the "reporter" is basically standing next to the event, the photo will be pretty useless.
And this is not the same as comparing digital to analog, it's comparing common sense to stupidity.
Also seems a lot of people in this forum understands photography about as well as those who made this bone headed decision.
Just like anyone who can use iMovie on a Mac is the same as professional editor, or anyone who can drive is qualified to be in F1, or anyone who can write a post on a forum is instantly an author on the level of Hunter S. Thompson ...
clearly the Chicago Sun-Times thinks that anyone who can point a phone is capable of creating images of emotive art and amazing composition.
I look forward to seeing what badly framed, over exposed and daring images from the front lines of journalism define the Times for generations to come.
clearly the Chicago Sun-Times thinks that anyone who can point a phone is capable of creating images of emotive art and amazing composition.
I look forward to seeing what badly framed, over exposed and daring images from the front lines of journalism define the Times for generations to come.
Welcome to the iPhone generation, where just being able to open Photoshop makes you a professional.
A decade ago when the Mac was still the domain of the designer and image specialist you might have got a more intelligent response.
You say that, but a lot of it isn't even part of our conscious thought process. For example, I'm sure that when I see a friend post a link to an article on Facebook I'm far more likely to click through and read the article if it has an interesting photo. For that reason alone, media outlets need skilled photographers that can generate interest with their images more than ever.
Our local paper did this. The photos went way, way downhill. Too bad. The Snewz has little else to offer beyond local reporting since the national news is just regurgitated. After about a year of that trash I stopped subscribing. I still occasionally pickup the paper at the local store but find I'm doing less and less of that because they have gotten thinner, less content and less local news which was their only strength. The predicted end of the print newspaper is coming up hard and fast. Moves like this are just accelerating the process.
So people can't have an opinion now, even if they don't support a particular entity?
As a professor of mine used to say:
"You have the right to say what you think. But you have the obligation to think what you say"