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
They should have let the reporters go and taught the photographers how to write. Prolly would get the same result but better pics. After all, pictures tell a thousand words but limited words only paint a limited picture.
I certainly hope not. Any true photojournalist at a real paper will get fired for "setting up" or manipulating shots.
https://nppa.org/code_of_ethics
Yes, this is the real problem. Imagine your team (1 journalist and 1 photojournalist) has one hour to cover a local event. The journalist spends that hour talking to VIPs, attendees, employees, whomever and gathering material for the story while the photojournalist spends the hour doing one thing: looking for a great photo. Lose the photographer, you now have a journalist spending 59 minutes gathering material for the story and 1 minute looking for a photo. 1 man-hour cannot possibly produce the same results as 2, even if the writer can shoot. But of course, it's what the audience will pay for, etc. etc.
Sorry, that's BS. There are a handful of external lens accessories, but the reasons they don't even come close to approaching DSLR quality is simple physics. There is just not enough surface area on the iPhone lens to gather enough light as there is on a DSLR lens, there are too many lenses losing light as you add additional after-market optics to a lens system like the iPhone, and there are simply not large enough "buckets" in the sensor to hold enough photons to avoid low-light noise effects. These effects only get worse as high-focal-length lenses equivalent to DSLR 300mm zoom lenses are added on.
These are not things that an after-market accessory can fix. They are not even things that Apple could really fix.
That having been said, the Sun-Times is clearly going for truly crap quality photography to go along with their stories, and apparently believe that it would cost too much to teach their reporters how to use more advanced photographic equipment (which is silly, by the way; low-end DSLRs generally take much better photos than iPhones even in fully-automatic modes), or that lugging around larger photographic equipment would slow their reporters down (which is more legitimate and inescapable, but I'm not sure how to square that with the assumption that said reporters will be sporting multiple add-on lens accessories for their iPhones ...) Of course, for less than the iPhone they could buy dedicated pocket cameras which would include many of the features of a DSLR although still with the inherent light-gathering physics limitations.
I like my iPhone for pictures, when it is all I have. The camera you have is the best camera, after all. But I wouldn't want to rely on it to document anything important, or especially anything dangerous. It's a good close-up, low-profile tool, but there are only so many situations which call for that.
I agree the iPhone (or any new smart phone) is great for taking pictures and video when you don't have a dedicated camera, let alone a DSLR. I use it all the time because I have it on me all the time but if I'm going some place I know I want to take good photos or video I bring the right camera for the job.
I'm amazed this story hasn't made the wider press or media as it could affects 1000s of people who make their living as photographers.
I'm amazed this story hasn't made the wider press or media as it could affects 1000s of people who make their living as photographers.
Nonsense. Here is a local news story hypothetical:
Go and photograph the biggest dog in the world. Talk to the owner etc, etc. What are you going to do? Get a pic of the dog standing in his yard?
No. You set up a shot that shows the size of the animal in relation to other objects. You set up a shot that has 'cute' appeal. This is a doggy story. A common space filler in newspapers.
Not all photojournalism is the big international picture. Not all stories cover the destruction of the World Trade Centre.
Just because new gadgets are there doesn't mean that they will produce results. Having a new word processor doesn't make you a journalist either.
Makes sense to me
This makes a lot of sense to me. Reporters quit being reporters many years ago. Now, they just repeat the propaganda. Propaganda is not worth much, so the papers don't need expensive photographers who take good pictures.
This makes a lot of sense to me. Reporters quit being reporters many years ago. Now, they just repeat the propaganda. Propaganda is not worth much, so the papers don't need expensive photographers who take good pictures.
Yeah, newspapers are struggling pretty hard. I read a lot of replies, but I did not see any replies that mentioned the fact that most of the photos you see in the papers are actually photos that society has taken and given away for free, or a small fee.
The pictures from society tend to be taken earlier in the event. There is a picture of one of those women escaping from the home of that mad man. Who do you think took that picture? Not the news crews. They took great video coverage though, and shots of the crowds.
The pictures from society tend to be taken earlier in the event. There is a picture of one of those women escaping from the home of that mad man. Who do you think took that picture? Not the news crews. They took great video coverage though, and shots of the crowds.
I'm a travel writer, and have made the switch from DSLR to iphone for my travel photography. It's amazing what this little guy can do. I'm hooked. I know many professional photogs who have made the switch too. I even saw a war photographer doing an interview who says he uses an iphone. It's a photojournalists and street photographers best friend. Some magazine covers are being shot with an iphone now. Heck, last years Oscar winner for best documentary was partly shot using the iphone!
Having said that, I also recognize its limitations. Even while I sing its praises, I can understand why the Chicago Sun photogs are pissed. Not only for being laid off...but because the iphone can't do EVERYTHING. It still sucks for low light and action. And forget about shooting anything far away. Or sports. Or wildlife. Anything where you need a telephoto lens.
I & many others have embraced iphonephotograhy as a revelation. I'm a convert, and will never go back to lugging around a DSLR. But I also acknowledge that its not for everybody or the best solution for every situation. As much as I love the iphone, I was still shocked to hear the Chicago Sun was doing this.
Having said that, I also recognize its limitations. Even while I sing its praises, I can understand why the Chicago Sun photogs are pissed. Not only for being laid off...but because the iphone can't do EVERYTHING. It still sucks for low light and action. And forget about shooting anything far away. Or sports. Or wildlife. Anything where you need a telephoto lens.
I & many others have embraced iphonephotograhy as a revelation. I'm a convert, and will never go back to lugging around a DSLR. But I also acknowledge that its not for everybody or the best solution for every situation. As much as I love the iphone, I was still shocked to hear the Chicago Sun was doing this.
I agree. We are living in the age of the Internet & instant communication. Newspapers & TV cannot compete, so they have become just as over the top & sensational. Everything is an easily digested sound bite now. Fear & gossip rule the day. Anything to keep eyeballs glued to the Telly or picking up a newspaper or magazine. Print media in particular is hurting. Advertisers are leaving in droves. So papers are cutting staff. Gone are the days of true investigative journalists who cover local beats. Gone are the days of real in depth, intelligent reporting.
It's all scandal, sensationalism and surface. Personally, I can't even watch regular news now. I turn to Jon Stewrt & Steven Colbert to cut thru all the BS & get to the truth. Lol.
Having said that, technology aint all bad. It has also put the power of twitter and a camera in the hand of every citizen. These are GREAT things too. Dictators are being overthrown with the help of twitter. The truth gets out quicker, in real time. It's amazing. Everyone can be a reporter. This is good.
But real journalists are still needed. They still exist, You just have to try harder to find them now.
S
syd430
Guest
Arn't all the people saying this is a stupid move because it would degrade the quality of the publication just stating the obvious?
Of coarse the person who made this decision understands that it will in some ways produce a lower quality publication as a result of lower quality images.
I'm sure that the person responsible for the decision also understands the intricacies of photography that many of you have keenly pointed out, and that it is an artform to be respected. At the end of the day, it's a business decision made by a for-profit company to cut costs. They weighed the costs and the benefits and decided that the saved costs would outweigh the benefit of high quality professional photos for their particular publication. Whether this was the right move is yet to be seen and will be determined over the long term. What I do know however is that all the people coming here and screaming that it's such an obviously stupid move come across as a bit.... naive.
----------
Oh right, because they're buying iphones for staff only to use them as camera's, and not work phones that they otherwise would have bought their staff, like a huge number of other corporations.
Of coarse the person who made this decision understands that it will in some ways produce a lower quality publication as a result of lower quality images.
I'm sure that the person responsible for the decision also understands the intricacies of photography that many of you have keenly pointed out, and that it is an artform to be respected. At the end of the day, it's a business decision made by a for-profit company to cut costs. They weighed the costs and the benefits and decided that the saved costs would outweigh the benefit of high quality professional photos for their particular publication. Whether this was the right move is yet to be seen and will be determined over the long term. What I do know however is that all the people coming here and screaming that it's such an obviously stupid move come across as a bit.... naive.
----------
Oh right, because they're buying iphones for staff only to use them as camera's, and not work phones that they otherwise would have bought their staff, like a huge number of other corporations.
