| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Photo Editor Mike Davis: What is a Newspaper Photograph?
Thomas Boyd, Photographer
 |
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 10:41 PM on 02.08.11 |
->> http://www.michaelddavis.com/blog/2011/2/8/what-is-a-newspaper-photograph.h...
Discuss!
Excerpt:
"...In the professional photography realm, newspaper photographers tend to fall in the middle to lower levels of quality - though there are some incredibly talented newspaper photographers. Newspaper photography is better than most newsletters or in-house organs and some web site photography. It’s usually not as good as the better magazines. Most newspaper photographers wouldn’t cut it as agency or wire service photographers and could succeed freelancing only at the less dimensional level...." |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 10:45 PM on 02.08.11 |
| ->> I'm going to go make some popcorn, grab a barley pop and sit back and enjoy the show..... |
|
Dave Prelosky, Photographer
|
Lower Burrell | Pa | US | Posted: 11:51 PM on 02.08.11 |
->> Some of what drives me crazy when I see these comparisons is this: I believe newspaper and magazine shooters are working for different audiences. My daily work serves as a billboard to draw a reader into a particular story, create a pause before turning a page, or create emphasis that would take hundreds of written words. I need to bring back work that is a quick read, not worry about scholarly depth.
To satisfy myself and my peers, I want to create "good photos" but also need to create photos that pass a page test. I need to be aware of the requirements of layout and content. Occasionally someone will build a page around a photo, but they still need to fit ads, the dedlist, heds, and flag or folios. |
|
Thomas Boyd, Photographer
|
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 12:00 AM on 02.09.11 |
->> Steven:
That's not exactly the sort of discourse I expected to see.
Mike actually makes some valid points based on years of experience at the highest levels of the business. It's his opinion and he makes some valid points. I'm a newspaper photographer and I don't disagree with everything he says.
If someone strongly disagrees with what he says, I would enjoy reading a reasoned response. I'm sure he would too.
The comments under his post are worth a read as well. |
|
Erik Markov, Photographer
|
anywhere | IN | | Posted: 1:03 AM on 02.09.11 |
->> The one thing I would say is he seems to dismiss news photogs because of their work. As if their newspaper work is all that they are. Granted some photogs do only have photos to show that are their work for their newspaper. However, there are also a lot of photogs who aren't satisfied with their work assignments and do their own projects or ideas etc on their own time. Many are members here.
He also says that news photogs could not rise to the level of a wire or agency photog. I don't say this next thing to be a troll or get someone angry; I've seen wire and agency photogs who seem to be content to not try too hard. Couldn't say the reason why they think that, but I've seen it in several photogs. But for me to say most if not all wire photogs are lazy or don't make an effort, because of a few I observed, would be.... mmm, lazy myself maybe.
Maybe the few he has observed don't put in the effort necessary. But making broad generalizations is too easy of a thing to do. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 1:48 AM on 02.09.11 |
->> Fisch...fail
I think Mike raises some valid points that are heavy handed with a broad brush...
Personally, I would venture to say that some of my wire and newspaper work, while more than satisfying market needs, may have not been my most creatively satisfying or best executed images... but that's me...I appreciate this site because of the many persons who execute at a creative level that is clearly superior to some of my efforts...
There are dozens of practitioners here and elsewhere who prove his shaky thesis to be so wrong...that would be Trent, Gerry, Sol, Chuck, Melissa, Andrew (all of youse) Corey, Monica (there's more than one), Carol, Todd, Damon, Angel, the Ricks, Liz, and countless others.
But his criticism aimed at some slackers at 2d and 3d tier papers may have a bit of misguided resonance. Granted, the depressed market has created a bunker mentality for these folks. But sadly most of them are managed by visually challenged newsroom leaders who pound them into cross platform, hit oriented multimedia instead of helping them create assignments that can produce images matching the more generous budget time given to the print reporters. Sure Mike references the "follow the lead item" mentality that handcuffs these photojournalists but when they do stray into a creative and possibly meaningful yet tangential display, they get the crap scared out of them when the word editors hammer them for "irrelevant" images.
It is disnigenuous to ascribe the blame on pj's who are trying to persevere in newsrooms where word side managers dictate a subordinate visual dialogue...I get his point but I think the simplified way he expresses it is unnecessarily harmful and maybe even disrespectful to a bunch of hard working photographers.
As newspapers lay off picture editors at an alarmingly disproportionate rate to other newsroom layoffs, the photographers lose their advocates. Overburdened and untrained copy editors are the new photo editors with automated pre-press programs and scarcely any concerns about a photo other than filling the hole on the page. How can a photographer exploit an assignment for creativity in that environment? It's an altruistic yet unrealistic sentiment.
Love to hear the spirit but I'm dying to see the plan that will implement it. |
|
Chris Pietsch, Photographer
|
Eugene | OR | USA | Posted: 2:42 AM on 02.09.11 |
->> Mike Davis writes a thoughtful and articulate article. Frankly the profession needs more of this kind of discussion.
I can see why some might take offense. The piece is clearly aimed at provoking a response. A well articulated poke in the eye to those among us who might be too content to simply move the hod along the trail laid out for us.
But of course this is not a new call to arms. I remember attending a Missouri Workshop back in the 80s. I was struck immediately by the subversive nature of the culture. The message even then was that newspapers where not the true keepers of the flame of photojournalism. We were lead to understand that the wordsmiths running the place back home served a different, baser master. And as we toiled on our projects and endured our critiques, we were encouraged to do our best to turn that tide aside when we got back to our real jobs, be it through thought, word or deed.
Heady stuff indeed. I came away inspired. Ready to do battle with the managers of mediocrity that would squeeze out my creativity and pander to the least common denominator. To hell with them!
But you know what? A funny thing happened. When I got back home, hitting the streets afresh with my trusty Canon F1, I came to realize a different reality. What mattered most in all of this wasn't the publishers, or the editors, or the hand wringing bean counters. Not the New York City photo editors or the professors from prestigious J schools. The people that really mattered were the ones who bought the old rag I worked for back in Podunk Hollow, USA. The ones who clipped out my pictures when they liked them or called me up to bitch me out when they didn't. The people who took time to write me a note of thanks or tracked me down to tell me I burned a bridge. These people are not stupid. They know a crappy picture when they see one, sometimes quicker than some people I work along side. And they know when they have been had by a photographer who is looking past them to greener pastures.
But you know, I'll go out on a limb here and say that I don't think Mike Davis would disagree with much of what I have said here. He trusts the viewers of imagery as much as I do and I think he truly wants to give them their money's worth. We are not shoveling coal here for God sake. So by all means let us all try to push the envelope in our work, whether our audience be newspaper readers or magazine subscribers or web blog followers.
As Mr. Davis said, " . . . you can find interesting images in almost any situation - or not, depending on your attitude and abilities."
I could not agree more. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 9:17 AM on 02.09.11 |
->> I'll be the first to admit that if I had just read the pull quote in Thomas' post and not read the fact that it was a quote by Mike Davis (whom I respect), I would have had the same reaction as Steven.
The fact that it came from Mike meant that I was forced to read the whole piece to get some context. Once you read the entire blog entry you get an idea of what Mike's trying to say... I just think the pull quote is poorly worded and may not accurately convey his real meaning.
For the record: I disagree 100% with the pull quote. In my opinion, newspaper photographers are, by and large, the most talented pool of shooters in the industry.
IF Mike's quote had said "newspaper PHOTOGRAPHY" rather than "newspaper PHOTOGRAPHERS" then I think it would be closer to what he's trying to convey.
Had he said that, "Often times the PHOTOGRAPHY that appears in SOME newspapers, for a host of different reasons, can sometimes fall into the lower and middle levels of quality when compared to large magazines and international wire services with MUCH deeper pockets." then I could defend that statment.
He even starts to explain this in his blog post. He describes the fact that often times the people who decide what images to run and how to run them have little to no background in photography (and in some case no background what sop ever in design) so the photographers' best images aren't always published.
Also, newspaper photographers (unlike shooters on assignment for magazines) are often juggling 5 or 6 assignments in an 8-hour shift. They don't have the luxury of getting there early, staying late, waiting for good light, or interesting moments. They have to get in, grab an image and then jump in their car and get to the next address scribbled on a little piece of paper sitting in the passenger seat.
If photography worthy of National Geographic standards doesn't result from that type of work environment then that's not the fault of the PHOTOGRAPHER. That doesn't mean that the photographer rushing around town with outdated gear trying his/her best to serve their community and keep up with a workload that used to be handled by 3 times the staff is a *lesser* photographer.
Nor does it mean that that same photographer, as Mike said, "wouldn’t cut it as (an) agency or wire service photographer(s) and could succeed freelancing only at the less dimensional level."
Mike, respectfully, I couldn't disagree more with the above statement. Give that same newspaper photographer the time, equipment, resources, editorial backing and photographic opportunities as someone on assignment for a large newspaper or major wire service and you'll likely see what they're capable of.
Granted, I'm not saying that some newspaper photographers don't arrive at an assignment and take the *easy out* but more times than not I'd bet they're doing it because they're pressed for time, not because they "fall to the middle to lower levels" of their craft or they lack creativity or the will to do a better job.
I shoot for all three: large magazines, major newspapers and international wire services and I'm the same photographer, putting forth the same effort and creativity, irrespective of who the client is... and I damn sure don't consider myself to be in the "lower levels" of anything... and neither do my clients.
In my list of my 5 favorite photojournalists... 4 of the 5 work for daily newspapers. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
| | | Posted: 9:20 AM on 02.09.11 |
->> Sorry ... the statement "Most newspaper photographers wouldn’t cut it as agency or wire service " ... right there I was turned off.
Maybe I'm thinking pre-2006 or something, but the majority of newspaper photogs I know, and have known, having worked as a staff photog, photo editor, chief photog at newspapers (and a contract photog with an agency and wire service) are excellent shooters who could move around to other news media channels if the opportunities were available to them.
To say they can't cut it is just wrong. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 10:04 AM on 02.09.11 |
->> I think the fact that Mike's essay can provoke such discourse is a mark in his favor. If you look at the comments on the blog you'll see some similar response to what we've already seen here.
I was interested to notice that I found, pretty much by accident, the clips that he was judging that sparked the blog post in part. While we can't see all the non-winners, we can see the images Mike, Randy and Melissa did deem worthy as well as read their comments:
http://www.nppa.org/competitions/monthly_news_clip_contest/view_natl_winner...
I, for one, am entirely in favor of more discussions the focus on visual values.
Sean |
|
Tim Vizer, Photographer
 |
Belleville | IL | USA | Posted: 10:24 AM on 02.09.11 |
->> If his comments were intended to be the truth as he sees it, and his own observations on the realm of photography as it is now, then I think he's missing out on a world filled with many wonderfully talented newspaper photojournalists.
If his comments were to promote conversation and an inward look at one's self, then I think he succeeded. And maybe there needs to be more of that. Maybe not.
But I don't necessarily like his method of hitting everyone on the head with a stick to get you to listen to his message, and personally, it turns me off as well and I tend to dismiss such methods.
And yes, I've been (primarily) a newspaper photographer for 35+ years --- who has also shot for wire services, photo agencies, done freelance work and been published in magazines --- and I bet there's many, many of you out there who have done the same things as well, which sort of throws a wrench into his equation. |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:42 AM on 02.09.11 |
| ->> I am a freelance photographer so if what is written in the article is true, then I am AWESOME!!! |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 12:56 PM on 02.09.11 |
->> First off -- Cantor, that's too, too kind, my friend. I don't really do anything special than just doing my job. I guess my parents did me right in the work ethic department (makes up for all the other emotional baggage they loaded me down with).
I can see both sides of the argument. And Tim, I don't know Davis personally (although I'm a HUGE fan of his work and the blog), but I'd hazard a guess he was aiming at the latter (promoting conversation and introspection).
One thing I've not seen mentioned that I think plays a huge role in newspaper photo departments (and newsrooms as whole) is morale. Most of us have had the crap beaten out of us for the last few years -- watching friends and colleagues getting riffed, getting riffed ourselves, watching the machine we're all cogs in totally fall apart.
I think it's very hard for some to push themselves for an employer they no longer have trust in. Not to mention paycuts, loss of benefits (we still don't have our 401[k] match at the DMN), overwork; that doesn't leave one much time or incentive to work harder.
Anyway, I'm thankful to Davis for what he wrote and the dialogue it's created. Sure, I don't agree with everything he said (and I suppose I could argue he could have broached the subject in a different manner), but so what? He got us talking and thinking, and that's the important thing, right?
I know for me, personally, I'll take to heart the bigger message and reflect on ways I can improve the product I give our readers. Because in the end, they're the really important ones, right? The community we're supposed to serve? Their needs are every bit as important (if not more so) that ours.
Cheers,
- gerry - |
|
Doug Pizac, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 1:12 PM on 02.09.11 |
->> While there are truly great talents in the industry, I have to agree that there are shooters who fall into the middle/low quality categories -- especially when you have papers who prefer to hire cheaply versus pay for quality. (And I don't mean to imply that all low paid people are no good. There are some high paid ones too as other posts have implied.) But is it just the photographer's fault? No. Newspaper shooters are probably the hardest working stiffs in the business because of the conditions they work in. And their dedication is why they will go out and spend their own money to improve their company issued equipment whereupon there are far too many companies that will take advantage of that dedication. (That's another thread altogether.)
Another problem, and probably the biggest, is that many of those in charge of putting the papers together are word people who have little or no photo or graphic design background or training. Unfortunately, many times photography is simply used to fill a hole. You can have a great vertical picture but if the layout is horizontal there is no way the editor is going to remake his/her page that was done before the photo was even shot. I've seen that attitude at dozens of newspapers. Or how many times have you been sent out to do a fast stand alone feature to fill space? That can hurt the credibility of the shooter when he/she comes back with something that's not great but good enough to run. How many images have you made that didn't make it into print for some reason or another? Plenty I'm sure. And because of these, you may be unfairly placed into the middle/low quality category because you didn't have the time or resources to do your best work.
Plus, how many times have reporters spent weeks on a story before photos even find out about it and then have a day or less to illustrate it. I've seen that happen in newspapers from 20k circulation to 900k to AP. And this affects the photography's quality too. The talent to create great pictures may be there, but not to its potential; and therefore can put that photographer into the middle/low quality category.
I believe it is a combination of all these factors that is part of the demise of the industry. Management is trying to figure out all these new electronic platforms to increase revenues and in the meantime they are cutting staff to control costs and protect profits. Yet it is the staff that provides the content which is the core of the newspaper's existence. That's like having a great soup and then watering it down to make it go further. At some point the customers (readers) are going to say this doesn't taste so good anymore and turn to other restaurants (Internet) for their sustenance (news/photos).
Instead of looking to improve the content, protecting the bottom line may be why instead of hiring a good writer and a good photographer many of the ads on journalismjobs.com ask for reporters who can also shoot and/or do video. I haven't seen one that says they are looking for a great top notch photographer who can also write. Look at how many stories are illustrated by the writer using his/her point and shoot or cell phone camera. The pictures are terrible at times, but cost effective to management because a second person (photographer) wasn't needed. It happens -- from little papers to AP.
The Huffington Post was just bought for over $300 million. The website has minimal staffing, no printing presses, no delivery trucks, no buildings, etc. The high price was for its content. One story about the deal used the term "content is king" in this Internet age. If that's true, then getting rid of your content generators (staff) through layoffs and furloughs should be that last thing you do. But then, Huffington's content is provided by thousands of citizen journalists and bloggers who don't receive a penny for their work.
And that's the crux of another problem. Content is highly valued in theory, but not compensated for realistically. It is this perception which is probably the core of all these rights-grabbing contracts. Content and photos have worth which is why publishing corporations want unlimited use forever in any form that exists now or may be created in the future and so on and so on. The problem is that they aren't willing to pay for it, and unfortunately too many people are willing to go along with it or have to because of these economic times.
Inadequate compensation doesn't promote ingenuity, putting in the extra effort, etc. which cycles back to the middle/lower quality categories.
The statements that Mike Davis are true, but maybe not in the broad swath it is brushed because of all the factors I have listed and more. However, that doesn't mean his words should be automatically dismissed. They are words we need to take into account as having truth to them, discuss and then work to improve our beloved careers. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:35 AM on 02.10.11 |
| ->> I read that piece earlier today and was somewhat put off by it. His reasoning to some extent was much like contests (which he seems to spend a lot of time judging)....everyone has an opinion and a lot of times they are very different. I understood what he might have been trying to get at but to be somewhat rude and throw all newspaper shooters under a bus was silly. It did make me laugh at the part where he said newspaper photographers couldn't make it at a wire service....no offense but I think most wire service photographer's heads would explode if they had the workload many newspaper shooters have nowadays. Just like on this message board everyone is entitled to their opinion, does that make Mr. Davis' opinion right? No. Does it mean it's wrong? No. It's his opinion...maybe he's just trying to drum up business for his freelance editing career "Picture Editor at Large" which is probably having the same problems as the rest of us in this age of lay-offs, furloughs and salary reductions. I can't imagine ANY publication wanting to spend money on some guy to come and tell them what a crappy job they're doing (his opinion remember). Money better spent on a couple of new cameras and lenses I would think. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 2:58 AM on 02.10.11 |
->> Chuck,
Most wire service photographers (at least the ones that work for the well established wires) worked at newspapers first. I did. I will agree, however, that most newspaper photographers do work a lot harder. The four or five assignments that I did while at a small newspaper just about killed me. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 4:04 AM on 02.10.11 |
| ->> That should read "four or five assignments a day." |
|
Gerry Melendez, Photographer
|
Columbia | SC | USA | Posted: 9:27 AM on 02.10.11 |
| ->> Look, you either have it or you don't. That innate gift of seeing that all the great ones have. It doesn't matter if you're a magazine, newspaper, wire, or "art-world" photographer. All the schooling, workshops, etc., won't get you there. They will help you become a more well-rounded photographer, but only so far. There's a reason all the great ones consistently produce deeper more powerful images. Some of it is skills learned through the years. Some of it is just out working others. But for the most part they just have a better visual understanding of their environment and the subjects they are shooting. Look at the recent discovery of Vivian Maier's street photography work. She was a nanny and is being compared to some of the great street photographers. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 9:59 AM on 02.10.11 |
| ->> Mark, that wasn't a slam on you guys. Almost every AP guy I know was a newspaper shooter first. I guess I was doing what Davis did heh? Lumping everyone together in the same garbage can! 8) |
|
Mike Burley, Photographer
|
Dubuque | IA | USA | Posted: 10:34 AM on 02.10.11 |
->> It just depends on the newspaper/magazine/wire service/"newsletter" for that matter. I've seen excellent small town newspapers (Flint Journal/Jasper Herald...etc) that blow away larger newspapers in terms of storytelling, and I've seen magazines with pretty pathetic attempts of on camera flash+grip and grin played up on double trucks. My point is there are so many different publications out there, its hard to make a blanket statement and create an absolute hierarchy.
Is Tracker & Trailer Magazine's photography really better than a community newspaper? How do you even define "better". Its a lousy comparison. They serve completely different purposes.. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 10:38 AM on 02.10.11 |
| ->> Can someone please explain to me why I should care about what Mike Davis thinks? |
|
Scott Morgan, Photographer
|
Rockford | IL | United States | Posted: 10:42 AM on 02.10.11 |
->> Here's what I think he might have meant.
If you shoot 4-6 assignments per day, only to have your crappiest web-gallery-only pictures picked to run dominant, then there is a strong tendency to not kill yourself for the subtle, though-provoking image. On our good days, we hope to get the safety shot and then work the assignment really good image. The problem is when you're tired and beaten down, you settle for the safety shot and move on. When you do that for a few years, it's difficult to motivate yourself to work hard for those better pictures. I think he might have been saying, right now, a lot of newspaper photographers are settling for safety shots.
I don't think he's saying newspaper photographers suck and will never move on to wires or magazines. I think he's saying from what he sees in these contests, newspaper photographers aren't living up to their potential.
He's telling us to knock it off and get to work. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 10:46 AM on 02.10.11 |
| ->> Bradly, I can't tell you why (or if) your should care what Mike Davis thinks, but I certainly care what he thinks. I care because, while I happen to disagree with a couple of sentences he wrote one night on a blog, the guy knows what he's doing and knows what he's talking about and I respect his opinion and would welcome his guidance... but that's just me. |
|
Mike Simons, Photographer
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 3:54 PM on 02.10.11 |
| ->> Thanks Scott, that's how I take it too!!! |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 4:01 PM on 02.10.11 |
| ->> Darn it, second time today I posted something on the wrong darn thread. The live chat is for the POYi iPhone photo issue... in case you were wondering. Today is daddy daycare day... maybe I should pay more attention to the kid. |
|
Lee Weissman, Photographer
|
XXXXX | NY | USA | Posted: 4:45 PM on 02.10.11 |
| ->> Aren't the editors the ones who pick the images even if they are the weakest of the shots only because they fit the hole no matter what it crops to? Isn't it part of an editors job to evoke passion and emotion from a photographer? Shouldn't an editor have the ultimate responsibility for using the best images of the day even if they are shot by a freelancer? Shouldn't an editor try to protect his photographers (staff or freelancer) by not using the wire photo just because the wire photo hit first? Shouldn't an editor at the end of the day be responsible. I'm just saying.... |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 6:23 PM on 02.10.11 |
->> "Isn't it part of an editors job to evoke passion and emotion from a photographer?"
Lee:
I see you're point, but as someone in "the biz," as it were, I can safely say that if I waited on the prodding of my editors to motivate myself ... well, it's like the old saying goes: You can shit in one hand and hope in the other, and see which fills up faster.
That is NOT a dig at editors -- especially mine. I have the true pleasure of working with one of the best photo editing staffs in the country. But, just like everywhere else, they're spread thin; less people doing more work.
They are certainly there to help if I need it, but they don't spend what little free time they have thinking up ways for me to better myself as a photographer. Make sense?
Perhaps that wasn't the point you were trying to make and I misunderstood you. If so, apologies. Guess I've just always been one of those "assign responsibility to the right party and accept it if it's yours" kind of guy.
Cheers,
- gerry - |
|
Matthew Ginn, Photographer
|
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 6:24 PM on 02.10.11 |
->> @ Lee, in addition to everything you mention, the editors also have a responsibility to manage their budget, and meanwhile manage all the other stories in their page/section too.
@ Brian, I think the two issues are related. In both Davis’ comments and the Litherland's post, I believe the question at hand is what the goal of the contest is. Is it to honor the most creative photographers of newsy things, or to recognize the most important news photos of the year?
Personally, I think that Davis' comments were accurate and serve as a welcome reminder (to me anyway) to make better pictures, I think he is overlooking the point of the news photograph. It's basically the same criticism as slamming news writers for not writing like Steinbeck. They're not supposed to--and news photographs should not be overly "arty."
But it has provoked an interesting discussion, both here and on his blog ... |
|
Kort Duce, Photographer
|
Idaho Falls | ID | United States | Posted: 7:08 PM on 02.10.11 |
| ->> This all reminds me of a book my friend Sam Dean recommended in the 1990s titled "How I learned Not To Be A Photojournalist" by Dianne Hagaman. |
|
Lee Weissman, Photographer
|
XXXXX | NY | USA | Posted: 10:52 PM on 02.11.11 |
->> @Gerry...As someone who is "in the biz" full time for a long time, my point is that my editors demanded a certain level, and you shot to it or were gone. My point was that editors , in my experience at least don't always do right by photographers. So, using a broad stroke and putting all the blame on photographers is not totally fair. You have never had an image cropped poorly, or one used that was not what you considered your best from the shoot, or had a wire image used over yours because it came in first? I know your paper, and I know you guys do a great job, you have very talented shooters, but everyone has an issue every now and then. I am very friendly with several photographers in your market and understand that the useage, and guidelines are vastly different. This is why my opinion and yours may not match.
Best...Lee |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|