Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
 Subscribe
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

Another blow to photojournalism
Craig Kohlruss, Photographer
Fresno | CA | USA | Posted: 12:33 PM on 12.04.06
->> Yahoo and Reuters will publish news photos from anyone. Times story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/04/technology/04yahoo.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=sl...
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael R. Sisak, Student/Intern, Photographer
Commack | NY | USA | Posted: 1:15 PM on 12.04.06
->> It's crumbling. The whole industry, crumbling. How can there be any optimism at a time like this?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Baron Sekiya, Photographer
Kailua-Kona | HI | USA | Posted: 1:33 PM on 12.04.06
->> And who will they fire once photoshopped images start hitting their sites? This could become another huge blow to credibility if fake photos start getting circulated by major news organizations.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Nick Doan, Photographer
Scottsdale Phoenix Tempe | AZ | USA | Posted: 1:35 PM on 12.04.06
->> How is this harming the industry?

Do the names Arnold Hardy and Mrs. Walter M Schau mean anything to you?

There are millions of photographs to be taken every single day, and we "professional" photojournalists cannot be everywhere to take them. So, this is just an outlet for people who take news worthy photographs, and have no other way for them to be seen.

I just feel sorry for the poor editor who will have to wade through all the images and pull out the truly news worthy ones.

The industry is still evolving. It behooves us to evolve with it; lest we get left behind.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Andrew Carpenean, Photographer
Enid | OK | USA | Posted: 1:36 PM on 12.04.06
->> I wasn't surprised Yahoo would pull something like this, but was appauled to see Reuters would. No appreciation or consideration of our craft on their part apparently.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Gong, Student/Intern, Photographer
Rockville | MD | USA | Posted: 1:37 PM on 12.04.06
->> I don't see how this is another blow to photojournalism or the industry crumbling. Without cell phone cams, we wouldn't have seen most of the photos that came out of the london bombings. I thought the whole point of journalism was to inform the public in the best way possible. So if we can't be there, I am glad someone else is, to document that news event. Sure there would have to be guildlines for ethics and proof of originality, but other than that, bring 'em on.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Patrick Smith, Student/Intern, Photo Editor
Forest Hill | MD | USA | Posted: 1:41 PM on 12.04.06
->> My first thought was the credibility to submitted images. I wonder how they will determine what is original, and what is not.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chris Halper, Photographer
Toronto | On | Canada | Posted: 1:48 PM on 12.04.06
->> Why is this a bad thing?

First, an exclusive is an exclusive. If the only camera at a moment of crisis is an amateur camera phone... so be it. It's either that or a 'pro' who arrived hours later.

Second, a good photo is a good photo. Sadly, I spend half my time competing with people who can't take a photo for their life... but they are "pro's" just because they can afford a $10,000 camera. If a good photo can come from a phone, my hats off to them.


My only fear is if quality suffers because publications will choose a free crappy picture over an excellent image that deserves a standard fee.

We should never care about the equipment over the image.

Uh oh... I am going to get flamed aren't I?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Primoz Jeroncic, Photographer
Kranj | SI | Slovenia | Posted: 1:49 PM on 12.04.06
->> Nick I actually partially agree with you, but problem is that things probably won't go the way you describe. Just short quote from Mr. Braun (in above article) says it all. "If that happens to be from a cellphone, they are happy with a cellphone. If it’s from a professional photographer, they are happy for that, too."
People are not so overwhelmed, if they see photo from professional photographer. Based on this quote, they are just as happy if they see cellphone photo. So this leads to Reuters having 2 options... paying kinda decent money to someone of us, or they can get free (or almost free) photo from someone with cellphone. If people don't really care about quality, which photo do you think Reuters will choose?
I still hope you are right, and it will be so as you said, but to be honest, I doubt.
PS: They will weed out retouched images? From few 100.000 (or even few millions) photos every day? When they obviously didn't manage to do this with very limited number of stringers, how do they think of doing this now?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kristina Barker, Student/Intern, Photographer
Youngstown | OH | USA | Posted: 2:05 PM on 12.04.06
->> i'm with patrick on credibility.. how are they going to determine what is real and what isn't? who's to say that they won't get photos from a bunch of schmucks that are posing something outrageous to get their photo on some website.

i'm all for the man on the street capturing the image of something the world wouldn't have gotten to see otherwise, but this is a strange way for news organizations to gather their images.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Harpe, Photographer
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 2:37 PM on 12.04.06
->> Reuters has done such a great job recently with spotting fakes from pros. I'm sure they'll have no problem spotting fakes from total strangers.

(ref)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jim Leary, Photographer
Island | NY | USA | Posted: 2:41 PM on 12.04.06
->> "Many news organizations turned to photographs taken by amateurs to supplement coverage of events like the London subway bombing and the Asian tsunami."

That statement alone tells me that the "pros" were not offering enough photos. Therefore, if someone with a point and shoot, a camera phone, a 30D or a D30 comes up with good photos, then why shouldn't they be used? Same thing in stock agencies. If someone who is not considered a pro submits great work, why shouldn't it be used. The end result here should be to have the best material out there regardless. There is so much politics inside of agencies and magazines, etc that the best photographers are not always being employed and average to good ones are getting the work for reasons other than straight out superb work. So, if Reuters or AP want to open their editing rooms to the average Joe I applaud it. If Getty Images wants to accept stock photography from people willing to pay for submissions then I applaud that too. Let the work speak for itself. If its garbage it doesn't sell anyway. Seems to me those who oppose such submissions are merely afraid there are others out there producing work better than theirs and do not wish to be shown up by a "non" professional.

If the final objective is to document news, an historic event, a sporting event, a concert or anything else and do so with the best images then agencies and news bureaus should accept everything submitted for consideration, not just photos from a guy that was hired because he got the editor some good discounts at the store the works in or a date with his hot sister. Let the best images be shown and paid for. Those professionals who are truly the best won't suffer because they will still produce the best images but those "pretenders" that are employed for the wrong reason may just get weeded out. The best always rise to the top. Competition is a good thing - it keeps the best on their toes and weeds out those that shouldn't be there in the first place and for the rest of us, we get to see great images. How can that be a bad thing?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Craig Kohlruss, Photographer
Fresno | CA | USA | Posted: 3:00 PM on 12.04.06
->> I worry about where this is heading. Newspapers are chopping away at news staffs as we speak and here is the next step. Sounds to me like we're giving away rights as well as creativity, quality and eithics because it's cheaper and readers don't care anyway. I can't believe people on this pro photography site are ok with this.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Schwarz, Photographer
Decatur | GA | USA | Posted: 3:39 PM on 12.04.06
->> When worlds collide...

quoted from the NY Times article, “People don’t say, ‘I want to see user-generated content,’ ” said Lloyd Braun, who runs Yahoo’s media group. “They want to see Michael Richards in the club...."

Seinfeld fans will understand.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (1) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael C. Weimar, Photographer, Photo Editor
Tampa/ St. Petersburg | FL | USA | Posted: 3:48 PM on 12.04.06
->> On the heels of the above posts of "doctored" news photos, check out the link to thier promo/upload page.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/youwitnessnews
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
Tempe | AZ | USA | Posted: 3:56 PM on 12.04.06
->> Nick and to anyone else who fails to see how this could destroy the industry, the publishing entities that run them will be happy to have the photos donated or impose a "no pay" policy, which will then negate a reason to hire us.

Arnold Hardy was paid over $300 for the photo, which in 1946 was a pretty good chunk of change. Sadly, I doubt most papers pay even that these days. Yahoo won't pay for the photos, just prey on the desire of those who want to see a published photo. Its the photo-makers (and notice I don't use photographers)who can afford to NOT do it for a living, but as a hobby, that will inherit our "clients"–who would be happy to get something for nothing.

I hear it more and more that the quality of the image isn't so important as having something to fill a space. That is the sad reality. My hat goes off to those who still believe in the quality image, the professionalism behind it, and the integrity to stand up and pay what it is worth, even if it was submitted by a non-pro. By letting the entities that run free photos prosper, we show ourselves the door right out of the industry.

It isn't about evolving. I am evolving right now by embracing video and multimedia in my bag of tricks. But by letting these entities evolve without OUR environmental check and balance we could exercise (how? a topic for another forum to be sure!)we WILL go the way of the DODO bird!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Lucas, Photographer
Toronto | On | Canada | Posted: 4:14 PM on 12.04.06
->> I think what Reuters is looking for are photos from news events where there were no pros or pros missed the image. They are not looking to replace staff shooters with joe blow with his 2mp camera phone.

Examples of what i'm talking about.

Pulitzer Prize
1996 -Charles Porter IV, for his photo of a fireman cradling an infant victim of the Oklahoma City bombing.
I believe he was a bank employee at the time.

July 2000
THE CONCORD CRASH; Airport Buff Snaps Photo of Flaming Jet.

August 2005
Photo taken by a passenger of the burning Air France crash in Toronto as he ran off the plane.

This will not replace the photojournalists out there. It will only add to coverage of the Wire Service.
Think about this logically. If any of the above people approached you with the pictures they took and asked if you wanted to buy them would you really say no?


Cheers
David Lucas
Staff Photographer
Toronto Sun
www.davidlucasphotography.com
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jim Leary, Photographer
Island | NY | USA | Posted: 4:16 PM on 12.04.06
->> I think all the talk here is a bit overly dramatic. Just because Yahoo, Reuters, Getty, etc are allowing the average person out there to submit images doesn't mean staff photographers are all getting their pink slips written up as we speak nor does it mean many, if any of those submissions will ever see the light of day. The reality is, few of these submissions will ever make it in print or on the net and most will likely be backup material. Sure, if Mrs. Smith captures something on her point and shoot that no professional was present to take anyway, she may get her stuff published but your average bystanders with cell phones are not about to replace staff photographers and to suggest anything of that nature is hiddeous and paranoid argument. As stated in the NY Times article, the quote by Steve Rosenbaum said... "The average person witnesses something that is considered news once every 10 years." I'm not sure if that is totally accurate but a valid point is made. Just because agencies are willing to take photos from the general public certainly doesn't mean anything worthy of print from a non-pro will be flooding the news wires anytime soon. On the other hand if there are some good photographers out there looking for a break this may be a avenue for that which is a good thing IMO.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Axel Heimken, Photographer
Telgte | NRW | Germany | Posted: 4:20 PM on 12.04.06
->> Same tendencies in German Newspapers. In the biggest daily newspaper of the country is a special "corner" where "Private Reporter" photos are published daily. Most of them Fun-pix or all kinds of cheap paparazzi stuff. Not one single picture that would put a photographer out of his job ...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jim Leary, Photographer
Island | NY | USA | Posted: 4:26 PM on 12.04.06
->> David,

You make good points and it is nice to see a seasoned staff photographer put forth that attitude. I suspect you have that attitude because you also have the confidence in your skills and your present employment not to be threatened. With good reason ... the images on your website are impressive. Images like those don't come from Joe Blow. I think those putting forth the most opposition to public photo submissions are the ones with the least confidence in their own work because they realize they eventually be weeded out when only the best remain.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 4:59 PM on 12.04.06
->> "I worry about where this is heading."

It seems the concept of "Spot News" is making a return. I would say this segment of the industry is coming full circle thanks to technology.

Remember before newspapers employed full staffs of inhouse photographers newspapers relied on freelancers who got a hot tip, run and shoot on speculation, then hurry home to process their prints and race to the newspaper office to beat the other guy with a camera to an editors office. Whoever got there either before deadline or had the best most spectacular shot got the cash, and while hashing out the details the other shooters raced to the next possible publisher. Now the concept is back except now content for the paper will be for a few years be free.

Four to five years from this point smaller web-based publications will spring up who will start purchasing the best photos for a small fee thus creating competition for the most newsworthy images. Companies will start paying more and more to have exclusive use of or first use of an image to stay competitive and to help generate advertising revenue.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ron Erdrich, Photographer
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 5:20 PM on 12.04.06
->> I have to agree with David Lucas' point, one of the most iconic photos of the 90s, the fireman holding the dead child at Oklahoma City, wasn't caught by a pro.

It does remain to be seen, however, if price becomes more of a point than quality and newsworthiness when news photos produced by pros go head-to-head against pictures from the same event taken by a guy with his cell phone.

And I'd just like to say how cool it is to have a Sportsshooter member named Axel.

-Ron-
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Robert Catto, Photographer
Wellington | NZ | New Zealand | Posted: 5:22 PM on 12.04.06
->> Here in New Zealand, the major TV news networks have been asking for people to send in their 'spot news' footage for use on air - of course, the catch is they take copyright in the footage if you do!

Wonder what the deal will be for people giving their images to the agencies...retrospective work for hire agreements, perhaps?
R
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Darren Carroll, Photographer
Cedar Creek (Austin) | TX | USA | Posted: 7:04 PM on 12.04.06
->> Let me get this straight: The whole industry is "crumbling," as evidenced by the free distribution of images by an agency, shot by people who are not full-time professional photographers (or, as Mr. Trimble put it, "people who can afford to NOT do it for a living"), and who weren't paid to be there?

This sounds mighty familiar, and isn't really a new development...Or is it only when big, bad corporations like Yahoo and Reuters do it that we tend to get (justifiably) upset?

Just askin'...
 This post is:  Informative (4) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ryan Gladstone, Photo Editor, Photographer
Columbia | MO | US | Posted: 7:30 PM on 12.04.06
->> One of my professors this semester is Clyde Bentley, one of the leading academics working in the field of citizen journalism. He is partly responsible for the creation of MyMisosurian, the first ever all user-submitted publication to reach print. (I believe).

After a semester of pulling out my hair and having to concede the benefits, or at least the inevitability of this new reality, I realize there are good, bad and funny things coming out of this revolution of sorts.

The good is that more spot news than ever will be captured. Like Mark Gong said towards the top of this discussion, our first commitment as journalists should be to informing people. If using submitted photos are the only option, than use them.

My fear is that editors will place their bets on the fact the average reader won't be bothered by a loss in quality. They will use inferior photos acquired for free or almost free instead of paying a professional. Credibility is also a huge issue that would need to be addressed.

As for the funny, if you haven't seen Jon Stewart's take on citizen journalism, you my friend, are missing out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBrK8fB6uYk
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (2) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ron Bernardo, Photographer
Hamilton | ON | Canada | Posted: 10:44 PM on 12.04.06
->> Atleast they don't need to shell out $50 to be printed like Getty. ;-)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (2) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:29 PM on 12.04.06
->> "one of the most iconic photos of the 90s, the fireman holding the dead child at Oklahoma City, wasn't caught by a pro."

I can't remember which shuttle return it was that burnt on re-entry, but the photo that ran everywhere was shot by I believe a doctor or dentist with his 100-400mm Canon zoom. The photo was purchased by the AP for undisclosed amount of money. I'm sure there are other examples.

Freelance shooters, part-time and full - experienced or not, have been chasing stories, cop cars, ambulances, and celebs for years hoping to get a shot they can sell (not license) to an interested publication. Like Darren said it isn't anything new.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Thad Parsons, Photographer, Student/Intern
Oxford | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 6:32 AM on 12.05.06
->> I know that this is sorta off-topic but people have been talking about the type of agreements used when submitting items to news agencies.

If you want to see the details on BBC's Have Your Say program ... where users submit their own photos, videos, and stories, see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2780295.stm

It is a royalty-free, non-exclusive license for all medias.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Harpe, Photographer
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 10:18 AM on 12.05.06
->> What is (fairly) new is the technology and the ability of the public to use it. Not too long ago, it was pretty tedious to capture, edit and transmit video/audio. Now we have camcorders and still cameras that can do a really good job on full auto. We have very capable editing software shipping with every computer sold. We have high speed broadband available in homes, coffee shops and libraries just about everywhere there is civilization.

As a result, it is much easier for the average person to do the technical side of the job. It does change the game.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Darren Carroll, Photographer
Cedar Creek (Austin) | TX | USA | Posted: 11:55 AM on 12.05.06
->> David,

That's very true. But what *hasn't* changed is that organizations/entities have been giving stuff away for free (for "marketing" purposes--i.e., "If we don't give it away now, we won't be able to build our client base, and pay you re-sales later"), using people who aren't full-time pros, and "paying" them with a credential and the prospect of seeing their name and pictures in print.

So I guess what I want to know is, why are you guys getting all up in arms about this particular instance when it's been going on long before this, with the complaints of grumpy old farts like myself falling on deaf ears?
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Tim Gruber, Student/Intern
Athens | OH | USA | Posted: 1:35 PM on 12.05.06
->> http://citmedia.org/blog/2006/12/04/the-demise-of-the-professional-photojou.../

A good read on this topic.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Holleman, Photographer
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 4:31 PM on 12.05.06
->> I'll gladly shoot the Superbowl for Yahoo! with a cameraphone if they hook me up with credentials.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (2) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jonathan Palmer, Photographer
Decatur | AL | United States | Posted: 10:59 PM on 12.05.06
->> Me and my buddies are going to start doing kidney transplants from my bathtub if anyone is interested. Seriously unbelievable!!!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Schwarz, Photographer
Decatur | GA | USA | Posted: 10:07 AM on 12.06.06
->> Wow, can't believe it. People already losing jobs after this announcement. Lloyd Braun, the Yahoo executive quoted in the story was just re-orged out of a job. Ah, the sweet, sweet irony.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/061206/yahoo_reorganization.html?.v=4
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Trent Nelson, Photographer
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 10:24 AM on 12.06.06
->> Everybody take a deep breath...

If you really think that someone with a cameraphone can outshoot me and my Mark 2 with L series lenses, you are crazy. I will kick their ass every time.

It's when I'm not there that their photos take on significant news value. As it should be.

Okay, breathe out.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Rob Ostermaier, Photographer
Newport News | VA | USA | Posted: 10:42 AM on 12.06.06
->> I know for a fact that papers love getting free content because my paper takes photos from a fireman all the time for free. As far as I know he's got a lunch out of all the photos he given to us.

A good photo is a good photo. I'm not opposed to running photos from readers that happened to be at the scene but they have to be fairly compensated. Beancounters at corporate papers are drooling at the prospect of an army of "citizen journalist" that have no idea what their work is worth! "Citizen journalism" is just another word for free content. That, in the end, is what will hurt professional photojournalism.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Craig Kohlruss, Photographer
Fresno | CA | USA | Posted: 11:07 AM on 12.06.06
->> I understand that a pro with a Mark II can outshoot Joe Schmoe with a camera phone. And I know a good photo is a good photo no matter who shoots it. We're all quite aware that news organizations have been accepting amateur photographs as long as photojournalism has been around. But what happens when the corporate bean counters are fine with "good enough" on day-to-day news coverage when only "hits" count anyway.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 1:22 PM on 12.06.06
->> Dan Gillmor, at the Center for Citizen Media, says "The rise of the citizen journalist is not a new phenomenon. People have been witnessing and taking pictures of notable events for a long, long time. And they’ve been selling them to traditional news organizations just as long. But professional photojournalists, and more recently videographers, have continued to make good livings at a craft that helps inform the rest of us about the world we live in. That craft has never been more vibrant, or vital. But the ability to make a living at it will crumble soon."

His full story, titled "The Demise of the Professional Photojournalist" is here:
http://tinyurl.com/ymksuj
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ron Erdrich, Photographer
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 2:48 PM on 12.06.06
->> My first phojo instructor, H. John Kelly, God rest his soul, admonished us to be wary of "Canon-cockers", basically anybody with an SLR who thought themselves equal to a pro just because they had gear like ours. He warned us that those folks were always around the corner and that it was only going to get worse.

Training and commitment, in his view, was what would always make the difference in the long run, despite the occasional lucky shot or right-place-at-right-time picture.

It still holds true for today, only the technology has changed.

-Ron-
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Harpe, Photographer
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 4:25 PM on 12.06.06
->> Saying "it's nothing new" about the increase in content provided by amateurs is oversimplifying it a bit too much. Yes, publications have accepted amateur content for decades. Usually it was done in very specific circumstances where there really was no other way to obtain the content. What's more, the volume was usually low, and obtaining said content in a timely fashion was difficult if not impossible.

This is no longer the case. The sheer volume of digital imagery being produced by the general public has gone up by an order of magnitude over the past few years. People are in more places with better imaging gear than ever before, and image delivery is almost trivial with email and broadband.

It's a simple math problem...more images produced by amateurs for free and being used by publishing companies means less opportunities for professionals to sell images. More images for free means prices for paid images will drop as well. Just ask the guys who used to make a living selling stock about this issue.

Great images will always rise to the top, and experienced professionals who consistently produce those images will always be able to make a living doing this gig. For those individuals at the higher echelon prices might actually bump up a bit. More "noise" below their level will make their spectacular images look even better.

But the mid-tier and beginner folks are going to have a much more difficult time making a living.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Fischer, Photographer
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 7:55 PM on 12.06.06
->> I've never bought into the theory - whether in business - or journalism - that a mass market can kill a specialist in any business.

There are several reasons why I believe photojournalism will survive - and even thrive - although I'd be at the front of the line preaching change change change.

So let's see - if there's more bad photos (technically speaking) - which ones will stand out? That's right, the good ones. The ones produced by professionals.

Have to learn video? Guess so - if you're a young one just getting started. Have to dig deeper on stories? Guess so - otherwise someone else will.

I could go on but I believe you get my point. Ron Erdich's professor was right. There will always be someone around the corner. Better know more. Better be better trained. Better be better.

The real threat to photojournalism continues to be the media groups that look at newspaper as nothing more as numbers on a page and look for ways to kill journalism on the alter of "maximizing shareholder equity."

I won't go on ... that's not what this thread was about. But change is in the air - and if you want to be successful you better be ready.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 9:58 PM on 12.06.06
->> Already a feature at the LA Times website:
http://tinyurl.com/ylkqum
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Barry Markowitz, Photographer
Hawaii Kai | Hi | USA | Posted: 11:04 PM on 12.06.06
->> It is very difficult with pro gear or point & shoot cameras/cell phones to cover severe weather stories, dramatic fires, big waves or hang tough when police or civilians threaten you at the scene with arrest or violence. So there will always be a place for those of us who do actuality coverage and sports in any kine weather for a living. The key, which Dennis Oda, a highly respected Honolulu Star Bulletin photographer & noted Starbuck's aficianado taught me in 1994 when I arrived in Hawaii from Western Samoa, was "to always be prepared!" I don't think non professional "shamateur" shooters can whip out AquaTech covers on their still cameras or Portabrace Covers on their videos at the scene of really scary breaking news dramas. I am sure most of you have experienced the difference between scary adrenalin pumping stuff and normal stuff. The non professionals may get a shot, but they may loose their image, their memory storage, lens, or their entire camera while trying (I wouldn't be surprised if some fools lose their lives in pursuit of news imagery beyond proper judgement). Ask Canon, USA repair in Honolulu how many turistas have had the big waves at Waimea Bay or Pipeline engulf them and their cameras. Our careers are based on commitment...commitment to getting the shot, commitment to being prepared, and a commitment to sharing a news event with integrity, courage, and quality. If a media entity chooses a free crappy shot over mine...gee whiz, the next time they want one of my exclusive dramatic still or video accounts...they will be informed that they might try calling me the next time and be prepared to pay full retail for the licensing of that imagery. So if you are a consistent producer of real news, the news/photo/assignment editors will surely put you at the front of the line if you are competing with a wannabe's imagery.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Leo Solinap, Photographer
Iloilo | Philippines | Philippines | Posted: 12:57 AM on 12.07.06
->> I have been a photojournalist here in the Philippines for more that 10 years and its been just 3-4 year ago that the advent of internet here in my place has been a hit. During those times, there are around 5-7 local dallies here. What sad is, there are dailies that do not have photojournalist and they have this reporter who just bring a point and shoot camera. For they have internet, most of sports photos from international sports are being pull out of the internet and published and most of the local daily photos came from point and shoot and press releases or those people who sends their photos to the desk and editors for photo release, and most are taken by point and shoot. This yahoo and Reuters job recently will give another huge advantage to these small local dailies like in my place who live and published their newspaper everyday despite the absence of photojournalist. For them, It's easy for them to grab photos to the internet and published and spend for the internet access than spending on big gears and salary for photojournalist. For those you there who are in the verge of extinction, pro-photojournalist in my place (with a population of 600,000) are already extinct. For few of us here like me, the only way we can get a better earnings is if wire agencies like Reuters, AP, AFP, EPA “lease” us for an event like international sports event in our place, tragedy with more than 15 people killed, a foreigner has involved in a crime or has been killed and a natural, human or environmental disaster. But those things come once in a blue moon. So we tend to go commercial photographer for us to live. With this yahoo and Reuters job, I thinks for us here in countries with lower-middle-income economies, in a few years we will be gone, or to live migrate. “Yahoo and Reuters Job” for my opinion will hardly affect those photojournalist in First World - Industrialized Countries but us photojournalist who are here in lower-middle-income economies or third world trying to make a hardy living. For me, Its fortunate that a foreign company trusted me with my work and loved my pictures and gave me a decent project and gave me gears that I can image I will have as long as i live.
I feel so sad for those who will loose their job for these things..
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Rob Ostermaier, Photographer
Newport News | VA | USA | Posted: 9:43 AM on 12.07.06
->> THE QUESTION REMAINS!

How do we make readers start caring about quality photojournalism again? Once readers begin caring then the beancounters begin caring. Or is it even possible at this point?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kent Porter, Photographer
Santa Rosa | CA | USA | Posted: 12:48 PM on 12.07.06
->> Well, how long will it be that people start demanding professional compensation for a having a photo published or appear on a organization's web site? Like everythging else in this world, people are out to make a buck. Having your photos published for free or a nominal payment is only going to go so far. The scale will tip to the favor of the photog in time. In the 20 years at our paper, I can honestly say that about nine pictures from our local readers have been good enough to publish from a spot news event.

Fisher says it best, be good, be better, be better trained.

And hope that everyone that is running the place knows and appreciates the good from the bad.

KP
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kent Porter, Photographer
Santa Rosa | CA | USA | Posted: 1:13 PM on 12.07.06
->> Sorry Michael, I spelled your last name wrong. To all, it should be Fischer.

KP
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Harpe, Photographer
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 2:39 PM on 12.07.06
->> How do we make readers start caring about quality photojournalism again?

I keep thinking that with all of these organizations accepting content from the general public, it will only be a matter of time before someone manages to get a really deceptive photo into the mainstream without detection. A Borat-level deception by a bunch of pranksters that makes a bunch of publishers look bad would probably chill the practice for awhile.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Phil Hawkins, Photographer
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 2:46 PM on 12.07.06
->> Does the name "Zapruder" ring a bell with anyone?

Phil
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of SportsShooter.com in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the SportsShooter.com website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: Another blow to photojournalism
Thread Started By: Craig Kohlruss
Message:
Member Login:
Password:




Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
What's in YOUR bottom band? ::..