MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 28 photographers fired - replaced by iPhones!  (Read 8413 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Microstock Man

  • microstockman.com

« on: June 01, 2013, 01:53 »
+2
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/05/31/chicago-sun-times-axes-all-staff-photographers-offers-reporters-iphoneography-training

As a former photojournalist myself, wow. Just wow. Are they crazy!? Fire a Pulitzer prize winning professional photographer and expect an iPhone to do better than him?

Some people will just never understand the idea that the photographer makes the photograph, not the camera.


Poncke v2

« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2013, 01:59 »
+1
I dont think they expect iphones to do better, or the reporters, but apparently they think its good enough and have no need for photographers. I read the Chicago Sun Times are financially struggling. Its no good to keep your photographers and go down in the end. Then everybody is out of a job. News papers need to cut cost these days, as the internet takes over. I can see where they are coming from, none the less, the developments are worrisome

Microstock Man

  • microstockman.com

« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2013, 02:03 »
+1
Worrisome is right. Makes me kind of glad I branched out of photojournalism when I did.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2013, 02:10 »
+1
oh that's ludicrous, surely after their first batch of blurry, poorly lit images they'll realise their folly?

« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2013, 02:48 »
0
I dont think they expect iphones to do better, or the reporters, but apparently they think its good enough and have no need for photographers. I read the Chicago Sun Times are financially struggling. Its no good to keep your photographers and go down in the end. Then everybody is out of a job. News papers need to cut cost these days, as the internet takes over. I can see where they are coming from, none the less, the developments are worrisome

On the other hand, internet or not - impactful images is driving more readers to the newspaper than text - so cutting the photographers might be one of the worst ideas.

Poncke v2

« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2013, 03:08 »
0
I dont think they expect iphones to do better, or the reporters, but apparently they think its good enough and have no need for photographers. I read the Chicago Sun Times are financially struggling. Its no good to keep your photographers and go down in the end. Then everybody is out of a job. News papers need to cut cost these days, as the internet takes over. I can see where they are coming from, none the less, the developments are worrisome

On the other hand, internet or not - impactful images is driving more readers to the newspaper than text - so cutting the photographers might be one of the worst ideas.
If there is no money, there not really a choice. Fire a few, and survive, keep them on staff, and go bust. I am not sure if the image quality difference is going to matter to readers. They want the story, and if there is an image great, but I dont think they care if it was shot with a 1D or iPhone.

Microstock Man

  • microstockman.com

« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2013, 03:35 »
+1
whats the first thing you look at when you pick up a paper? The photo and the headline!

So why not fire all the reporters and get the photographers to just write a few words...? They can even dictate it into an iphone... When you think about it, it's about as insane as what they've done.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2013, 03:41 »
0
lol, so true! it's an insult to us that writers can take good photos, like anyone with a camera is a photographer (reminds of the statement made by yahoo woman last week).

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2013, 03:55 »
0
One of Scotland's two biggest national newspapers sacked most of its togs 3-4 years ago, because it was either that or fold completely.

In the UK, it certainly IS the case that the newspapers with a higher photo to text ratio which sell best, but these are the (often embarrassing) tabloids with celeb / footballer pics, not those with high photojournalism standards. I realise this is probably a UK thing.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2013, 04:14 by ShadySue »

Poncke v2

« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2013, 03:58 »
0
???? So its no insult to writers that suggesting every photographer can write a news story. Firing the writers is ok, and a more logic move for a news paper? Sigh

« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2013, 04:09 »
0
Why does it have to be either or? Either photogs or writers?

Microstock Man

  • microstockman.com

« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2013, 04:27 »
0
???? So its no insult to writers that suggesting every photographer can write a news story. Firing the writers is ok, and a more logic move for a news paper? Sigh

That was not my suggestion. It was a comparison, both scenarios being equally as absurd.

Poncke v2

« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2013, 04:27 »
0
Why does it have to be either or? Either photogs or writers?
Because they cant keep all staff. Its quite simple, cut cost or go bust

Quote
The job cuts come as newspapers across the world struggle with declining advertising and subscription revenues.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22723725

None the less, they could have kept a few on staff, cutting all 28 is quite a drastic move

Poncke v2

« Reply #13 on: June 01, 2013, 04:28 »
0
???? So its no insult to writers that suggesting every photographer can write a news story. Firing the writers is ok, and a more logic move for a news paper? Sigh

That was not my suggestion. It was a comparison, both scenarios being equally as absurd.

Fair enough.

« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2013, 07:35 »
0
Can't wait to see their images from the Bears, Bulls, Cubs, and White Sox games.  Would be funny to see them on the sidelines with their Iphones.

« Reply #15 on: June 01, 2013, 08:09 »
0
In Denmark you can do a 4 year photojournalist degree at the school of journalism that enables you to do both jobs and not just that of the writer or photographer. This will probably be a safer route to take in the future......

ShadySue

« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2013, 08:52 »
+1
Can't wait to see their images from the Bears, Bulls, Cubs, and White Sox games.  Would be funny to see them on the sidelines with their Iphones.
They'll buy in from Getty/whoever.

Reef

  • astonmars.com
« Reply #17 on: June 01, 2013, 08:58 »
0
Can't wait to see their images from the Bears, Bulls, Cubs, and White Sox games.  Would be funny to see them on the sidelines with their Iphones.
They'll buy in from Getty/whoever.

Exactly.

Newspapers are in decline so its not surprising to hear this. They only need low resolution images for both newspaper print and the web. A news picture only needs to tell a story and in most circumstances does not require a skilled photographer. They can hire a freelancer when they need something special I guess!

It could be Microstock quickened their retirement from the industry what with cheap editorial images so available these days.

« Reply #18 on: June 01, 2013, 12:59 »
0
these newspapers were cr-ap since even before the internet and digital, it's no news that they were losing readers and money since forever.

too late now, and dont worry, journalists will be fired as well and replaced with cheap or volunteer bloggers, just as AOL and others did.



« Reply #19 on: June 01, 2013, 13:37 »
+13
What they really want is for readers to supply all the content.  And then pay for it.   




« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2013, 00:08 »
0
What they really want is for readers to supply all the content.  And then pay for it.

actually there's never been shortage of free content even in the past.

what makes the difference is exclusive content and it doesnt come cheap.

i could make a newspaper myself lifting blog articles and random cr-ap found on the net but to make unique i should rewrite from scratch most of it and should all fit in a "format" and an editorial line and this will take a full time editor and a photo editor and a few assistants at least.

you cannot just make an assembly of random content, that's Google News or any other "news aggregator", not a real newspaper, and nobody would pay for it.

i mean, the cost of the content is not what's killing newspapers, there's just no more the critical mass of readers as in the past especially readers willing to pay for all these political news.

if you think paper magazines are dead look at the gossip/tabloid ones, they still sell millions of copies but guess what, they've plenty of exclusive content and exclusive photos and plenty of weird stories you dont find on Reuters/AP/AFP.

and they're very funny in their titles if you have a sense of humour, i would definitely read THE SUN while taking a sh-it.

« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2013, 09:47 »
0
I think there's still a market for good news coverage, well written journalism, professional photography.   These companies just can't find it. 

NYT has quality but is still asking too much money for occasional online access. 

My local (Minneapolis) newspaper was reduced to sports and 'fluff' years ago, and I dropped the paper subscription.  Their web site is a cluttered eyesore.

 I'd still like to know what's happening in the world, and in my city, and I'm willing to pay something for it.  I'm an unserved market.




ShadySue

« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2013, 10:09 »
0
I'd still like to know what's happening in the world, and in my city, and I'm willing to pay something for it.  I'm an unserved market.
I like to know, but that's what the Beeb is for.
I stopped getting a newspaper not long after we got married, so over 30 years ago, as we never had time to read them and had a pile of unread papers by the weekend. Then I got one called the Guardian Weekly, which aggregated the week's news from the Guardian, Le Monde and either NYT or WP, but never read that either.
The local paper might theoretically be more interesting, except that I know to my cost that their standards of journalistic accuracy leaves much to be desired, so I boycott it.

« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2013, 10:20 »
+1
The fact is there is a new esthetic brought about, mainly, by the Internet and and its democratic-ization of information (crowd sourcing) .  This process is seen not only in graphic content but what passes for studied opinion (Blogs, etc).  We live in the continuing dumbing down in the intellectual level of the populous, which is a curious outcome of the Internet and its promise of having all vital information just a click away.  Sad to say, but the reason Professional Photojournalists are no longer needed is because the readers of the media can't tell the difference between a good and bad photograph.

ShadySue

« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2013, 10:47 »
0
The fact is there is a new esthetic brought about, mainly, by the Internet and and its democratic-.  Sad to say, but the reason Professional Photojournalists are no longer needed is because the readers of the media can't tell the difference between a good and bad photograph.
Or if they can, they don't care.

« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2013, 10:57 »
+3
The fact is there is a new esthetic brought about, mainly, by the Internet and and its democratic-.  Sad to say, but the reason Professional Photojournalists are no longer needed is because the readers of the media can't tell the difference between a good and bad photograph.
Or if they can, they don't care.

My point.
The art of Critical Thinking is one of the victims of the Internet.

« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2013, 11:44 »
0
The local paper might theoretically be more interesting, except that I know to my cost that their standards of journalistic accuracy leaves much to be desired, so I boycott it.

That's also true - as I get older I realize more and more that so much of what's in the news media is cr@p.  Wild exaggerations, gross oversimplifications.  Fake, emotionally charged stories spun around a handful of verifiable facts. 

tab62

« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2013, 12:25 »
0
I am seeing this happen to wedding and family shots as well- a lot of my coworkers are hiring 'Uncle Ben' or some Craiglist guy/gal for $50 to do a full family shot and $175 for wedding shots. They aren't using an iPhone but instead a Canon rebel or a fancy point & shoot claiming it's as good as the 1D/5D Canon or D800 Nikon.  Signs of the times changing... 

« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2013, 13:16 »
0
I am seeing this happen to wedding and family shots as well- a lot of my coworkers are hiring 'Uncle Ben' or some Craiglist guy/gal for $50 to do a full family shot and $175 for wedding shots. They aren't using an iPhone but instead a Canon rebel or a fancy point & shoot claiming it's as good as the 1D/5D Canon or D800 Nikon.  Signs of the times changing...

they will soon regret it when one day they will see some other friends' wedding photos shot by a Pro for 2-3000$.

ShadySue

« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2013, 13:17 »
+3
I am seeing this happen to wedding and family shots as well- a lot of my coworkers are hiring 'Uncle Ben' or some Craiglist guy/gal for $50 to do a full family shot and $175 for wedding shots. They aren't using an iPhone but instead a Canon rebel or a fancy point & shoot claiming it's as good as the 1D/5D Canon or D800 Nikon.  Signs of the times changing...

they will soon regret it when one day they will see some other friends' wedding photos shot by a Pro for 2-3000$.
Do you think so?
I've never ever heard anyone say they wish they'd spent more on wedding photos. Most people are like me and feel they spent far too much!

« Reply #30 on: June 02, 2013, 13:23 »
0
but the reason Professional Photojournalists are no longer needed is because the readers of the media can't tell the difference between a good and bad photograph.

My point.
The art of Critical Thinking is one of the victims of the Internet.

there's too much noise on the web and nobody like to read long stuff anymore.

for photos it's even worse, we're flooded by photos, millions, trillions ... and the web is not exactly the best medium to display photos.

there's a world of difference between looking at a good photo printed in A3 format hanging on a wall and looking it 500px large on a laptop.

of course people cant tell ... they're just JPG thumbnails ! and soon they all look the same, dull, and boring.


dbvirago

« Reply #31 on: June 02, 2013, 14:28 »
0
Let's say newspapers never existed. Tomorrow, you read in Google News or CNN.com that there is a company starting up. They are going to hire a huge amount of people, build a large office building and purchase a lot of expensive equipment. Some of these employees will be responsible for flying around the world and talking to people, collecting information. A photographer will go with each of these people to take pictures. Then, once or twice a day, other people back at this big building will accumulate all of these stories and photographs and print them on paper. After that, some other people will load all this paper onto trucks and drive around the city putting them in vending machines where you can buy them and find out what was going on in the world earlier that day or the day before. As an added service, other people will drive all over the city and deliver these papers full of news to individual houses.

How much would you be willing to invest in this new venture?

Hey, I've got another idea. Every day at 6pm and 11pm, you can turn on your television....

ShadySue

« Reply #32 on: June 02, 2013, 14:40 »
0
but the reason Professional Photojournalists are no longer needed is because the readers of the media can't tell the difference between a good and bad photograph.

My point.
The art of Critical Thinking is one of the victims of the Internet.
there's too much noise on the web and nobody like to read long stuff anymore.
Plus it is more difficult, either physiologically or phycholically to read extended prose on the web.

dbvirago

« Reply #33 on: June 02, 2013, 14:59 »
+1
but the reason Professional Photojournalists are no longer needed is because the readers of the media can't tell the difference between a good and bad photograph.

My point.
The art of Critical Thinking is one of the victims of the Internet.
there's too much noise on the web and nobody like to read long stuff anymore.
Plus it is more difficult, either physiologically or phycholically to read extended prose on the web.

It's also annoying. Windows popping over the text asking if you want to take a survey. Animated and video ads all over the periphery of your vision. Being forced to watch a 15 minute video (following a 3 minute ad) to get the same info you could get in 30 seconds of reading text.

ShadySue

« Reply #34 on: June 02, 2013, 15:22 »
0
Being forced to watch a 15 minute video (following a 3 minute ad) to get the same info you could get in 30 seconds of reading text.
That is so annoying. Why do people assume we want to waste time on video? Use video where it's necessary, use text otherwise. Or at the very least have the text available so that there's a choice (isn't that a basic accessibility requirement?).

« Reply #35 on: June 02, 2013, 15:35 »
0
Being forced to watch a 15 minute video (following a 3 minute ad) to get the same info you could get in 30 seconds of reading text.

If a 15 minute video equates to 30 seconds of reading, the video editor didn't do their job! A properly produced and edited video should give you all of the facts much faster than the average person reads

ShadySue

« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2013, 15:39 »
0
Being forced to watch a 15 minute video (following a 3 minute ad) to get the same info you could get in 30 seconds of reading text.

If a 15 minute video equates to 30 seconds of reading, the video editor didn't do their job! A properly produced and edited video should give you all of the facts much faster than the average person reads
Maybe so, but it seldom happens, especially online.

EmberMike

« Reply #37 on: June 02, 2013, 16:16 »
+4
What they really want is for readers to supply all the content.  And then pay for it.

Bingo. And they're conditioning people to get used to that idea. It starts small, with those "send us photos of the snow piling up in your backyard" requests and it gets people into the habit of submitting content to a news organization. Then people won't hesitate to send in the really good stuff when they catch some big event on their phone camera. And they certainly won't ask for a dime in return for the photo or footage, something they used to pay people for.

« Reply #38 on: June 02, 2013, 19:26 »
+4
... Windows popping over the text asking if you want to take a survey. Animated and video ads all over the periphery of your vision. Being forced to watch a 15 minute video (following a 3 minute ad) to get the same info you could get in 30 seconds of reading text.

Couldn't agree more.  Every flippin' web site in the world now has a pop-up survey request.  Every news video clip starts with an ad.   Need to find out how to do something in Photoshop - instead of a paragraph of text, all you find are 5-minute amateur videos that take 2 minutes to get to the point.   Your local newspaper turns into a web site that's just one big blinking eyesore of clutter.

I have zero patience for any of that stuff, anymore.  I hope all these web companies are tracking how many people click away when the ad starts and never watch the video they came to see.

These companies don't know how to make proper use of screen real estate.  They have no clue how to pull people in and keep them engaged.   No design sense is in evidence.  Just a high-pressure sales pitch that makes you want to turn right around and head out the door.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2013, 19:39 by stockastic »

« Reply #39 on: June 02, 2013, 23:44 »
+1
there should be NO videos at all ! it's supposed to be a newsPAPER not a hybrid streaming TV !

and yes, most of the video su-ck anyway so what's the point ? they've heard that now we're in the web 2.0 era and so that means "multimedia" and other buzzwords.

and also :

- news sites where comments are only visible if you enable Javascript and disable any AD-blocker
- comments are also paged so after you've read 10 comments you need to go page 2 and it take ages to load.
- in most of the cases the comments are much more interesting than the article.
- images in articles being inside a Javascript popup so again you need to disable ad-blockers and all but it will also load popups and ads everywhere.
- image gallery inside FLash ! oh my god ! i always disable Flash altogether. (Reuters for instance)
- a home page that takes 2MB to download (The Sun or Guardian.com for instance)
- FB "like" and G+ buttons everywhere
- articles split in up to 10 pages with no way to see it as a single page


and the list goes on ... really, i'm a news junkie but it's getting harder to keep the trash out.
the quality of the content is getting noticeably worse, shorter, and no more informative than a 5 lines text box on Reuters or AP/AFP, no wonder people see no big differences between journalists and bloggers.

in the end, who's gonna ever pay to read this sh-it ? 

« Reply #40 on: June 02, 2013, 23:49 »
0
Plus it is more difficult, either physiologically or phycholically to read extended prose on the web.

and that's nothing, try reading a 1000 pages ebook on a laptop, i've many great books in PDF but it's a pain in the as-s on a small 13" monitor.

maybe i should try a Kindle or find a cheap deal with a print shop.

« Reply #41 on: June 02, 2013, 23:51 »
0
Bingo. And they're conditioning people to get used to that idea. It starts small, with those "send us photos of the snow piling up in your backyard" requests and it gets people into the habit of submitting content to a news organization. Then people won't hesitate to send in the really good stuff when they catch some big event on their phone camera. And they certainly won't ask for a dime in return for the photo or footage, something they used to pay people for.

BBS does that already.

whenever there's a breaking news they add a box at the end of the article asking you "Are you in xxxx ? Send us photos, commments, etc etc and we will publish it ! " ... no mention of payment or any other recompensation, they've a page with "submission guidelines" but i guess it's only for professional freelancers, not for random readers.


« Reply #42 on: June 14, 2013, 07:59 »
0
In the UK, a subscription for just one decent newspaper would cost 30 or $45 per month - without the subscription I'd be looking at 45 or $68 per month. Given the tsunami of free content out there, images and words, its no wonder our sprogs have never bought a newspaper.

Besides which, a lot of the columnists in the UK broadsheets are pompous, overpaid twits - there are very few diamonds amongst the ashes. The tabloids are not worth wiping your....well, you get the picture - or not if you live in Chicago.

« Reply #43 on: June 14, 2013, 13:03 »
0
In the UK, a subscription for just one decent newspaper would cost 30 or $45 per month - without the subscription I'd be looking at 45 or $68 per month. Given the tsunami of free content out there, images and words, its no wonder our sprogs have never bought a newspaper.

Besides which, a lot of the columnists in the UK broadsheets are pompous, overpaid twits - there are very few diamonds amongst the ashes. The tabloids are not worth wiping your....well, you get the picture - or not if you live in Chicago.

yeah but exclusivity still plays a big role.

sometimes there are newspaper doing a big scoop, see The Guardian with the recent NSA scandal and the SCMP with yesterday's exclusive interview with Snowden.

if every week there was a scoop like this newspapers would sell like hotcakes.
and instead it's a dieing industry, only gossip magazines still sell in droves exactly because they've always some exclusive paparazzi news about whatever celebrity of the moment and that's not something freely available anywhere on the web apart on TMZ or crooks like Perez Hilton.

i mean, why buying the cow when the milk is free ?

take Travel photography, in the past you could go in a newsstand and buy National Geographic or read your encyclopedia or buy a travel guide or a travel book, now you have Flickr, 500px, google images, millions of travel sites and blogs and forums with decent and/or very good images and articles.

really any possible travel information you could ever need is just a few clicks away and it's FREE.
if i plan a trip on the weekend i can quickly see how the place looks like and there's someone who blogged about it or entire articles on travel magazines with photos and maps, and then i have Tripadvisor, Hostelworld, AirBnB, and so many other sites to check prices and locations just to get a rough idea.

if even Lonely Planet has been sold twice (first to BBC and then to a small publisher) it's indeed a sign of the times.

all this information was something people was more than ready to pay for until not long ago !
but now it's free and it's spread everywhere, ironically the issue now is the oversupply of information.

years ago a former Lonely Planet author admitted he wrote a whole book just using google, and yes this is the situation and i could certainly do the same with some time and money, who needs to buy a travel guide when there are tons of reviews on hostels, hotels, guesthouse, and resorts ? when maps are free and a lot better than LP or Rough Guides ? when there's a sh-itload of travel forums with actual backpackers discussing in depth any possible thing especially about visas and security alerts ?

so, if nobody pay for it, who's gonna buy travel images in the future ?
and, will there be a steady demand for it or the whole industry will nosedive ?
sure, many places change and need new images but many others still look the same even after 20-30 yrs.
mountains for instance ... rivers .. oceans .. beaches with coconut palms .. market .. people ..
« Last Edit: June 14, 2013, 13:16 by Xanox »

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #44 on: June 14, 2013, 20:39 »
+2
Being forced to watch a 15 minute video (following a 3 minute ad) to get the same info you could get in 30 seconds of reading text.

If a 15 minute video equates to 30 seconds of reading, the video editor didn't do their job! A properly produced and edited video should give you all of the facts much faster than the average person reads
but I don't want to be dumbed down to 'average'. The craft of an elegantly worded sentence is lost when we let video take over.

RacePhoto

« Reply #45 on: June 17, 2013, 19:23 »
0
Years ago, someone I knew, gave every guest a disposable camera and said, shoot what you like. So about 100 photographers, doing what we see now on social media sites. Personal viewpoints and fun. I'm sure they had someone professional do portraits, if that's what they wanted.

Back in younger days, I'd shoot a candid wedding collection, give them the film and wave goodbye. Now I can't even stomach that.

Why weddings make me cry. Band $2000 to play schlock music, photographer who works for some name guy, is handed a camera and told he's a professional. (paid an appearance fee, the name gets the big money) People get blurred shots for an over-priced agency name, hired gun. Wedding planners and catering and ballrooms. If they hire a DJ, it's the same as a band. Hired spinner, the agency gets the meat. Someone gets $50 to play the program, the owner gets $200 and up for owning the name. Flowers? Dress, suits and tuxedos.

Hey it's a racket and license to steal, why not make photography the same. Kick em while they are weak and steal their wallet.

OK you can see, I'm not in favor of wedding photography or the inflated prices.

By the way, OP, yeah kick in the ass isn't it? Years of work, school, quality and experience and replaced by an iPhone or P&S. Same happened to real estate, except the high price listings. Agent or broker will drop by, snap some shots and off to the listing. I knew a guy who made his professional living as a real estate photographer. Not anymore.

But newspapers are dying and the integrity and quality of the photos, isn't what it used to be. Papers across the country were in competition for best photos and awards for best photography. Now an iPhone. How Sad.



I am seeing this happen to wedding and family shots as well- a lot of my coworkers are hiring 'Uncle Ben' or some Craiglist guy/gal for $50 to do a full family shot and $175 for wedding shots. They aren't using an iPhone but instead a Canon rebel or a fancy point & shoot claiming it's as good as the 1D/5D Canon or D800 Nikon.  Signs of the times changing...

they will soon regret it when one day they will see some other friends' wedding photos shot by a Pro for 2-3000$.
Do you think so?
I've never ever heard anyone say they wish they'd spent more on wedding photos. Most people are like me and feel they spent far too much!

« Reply #46 on: June 18, 2013, 16:33 »
+1
Being forced to watch a 15 minute video (following a 3 minute ad) to get the same info you could get in 30 seconds of reading text.
That is so annoying. Why do people assume we want to waste time on video? Use video where it's necessary, use text otherwise. Or at the very least have the text available so that there's a choice (isn't that a basic accessibility requirement?).

I'm ok if they have both...different people learn differently. But I hate it when I'm looking for an answer on how to do something in PS or some other app and I accidentally click on a video. I immediately back out and search for text. That way it's up in front of me and I can re-read without having to fiddle with the stupid playhead.

Microstock Man

  • microstockman.com

« Reply #47 on: June 18, 2013, 19:57 »
0
Years ago, someone I knew, gave every guest a disposable camera and said, shoot what you like. So about 100 photographers, doing what we see now on social media sites. Personal viewpoints and fun. I'm sure they had someone professional do portraits, if that's what they wanted.

Back in younger days, I'd shoot a candid wedding collection, give them the film and wave goodbye. Now I can't even stomach that.

Why weddings make me cry. Band $2000 to play schlock music, photographer who works for some name guy, is handed a camera and told he's a professional. (paid an appearance fee, the name gets the big money) People get blurred shots for an over-priced agency name, hired gun. Wedding planners and catering and ballrooms. If they hire a DJ, it's the same as a band. Hired spinner, the agency gets the meat. Someone gets $50 to play the program, the owner gets $200 and up for owning the name. Flowers? Dress, suits and tuxedos.

Hey it's a racket and license to steal, why not make photography the same. Kick em while they are weak and steal their wallet.

OK you can see, I'm not in favor of wedding photography or the inflated prices.

By the way, OP, yeah kick in the ass isn't it? Years of work, school, quality and experience and replaced by an iPhone or P&S. Same happened to real estate, except the high price listings. Agent or broker will drop by, snap some shots and off to the listing. I knew a guy who made his professional living as a real estate photographer. Not anymore.

But newspapers are dying and the integrity and quality of the photos, isn't what it used to be. Papers across the country were in competition for best photos and awards for best photography. Now an iPhone. How Sad.



I am seeing this happen to wedding and family shots as well- a lot of my coworkers are hiring 'Uncle Ben' or some Craiglist guy/gal for $50 to do a full family shot and $175 for wedding shots. They aren't using an iPhone but instead a Canon rebel or a fancy point & shoot claiming it's as good as the 1D/5D Canon or D800 Nikon.  Signs of the times changing...

they will soon regret it when one day they will see some other friends' wedding photos shot by a Pro for 2-3000$.
Do you think so?
I've never ever heard anyone say they wish they'd spent more on wedding photos. Most people are like me and feel they spent far too much!

Just makes me glad I have diversified over the years to the point where I am at now. No doubt though this will be affecting some of my former colleagues, who I feel for.

« Reply #48 on: June 20, 2013, 06:16 »
-2
what killed the industry is not digital or cheap cameras, it's the many autofocus, autoWB, auto-exposure, auto-everything and green modes !

if in green mode even my grandma can make a decent snapshot in 50% of the cases who needs to pay a photographer ?

and yeah, fitting a camera inside every cell phone was the last straw.

we can discuss for ages about how bad are these snapshots but for the average people they just look good enough, it's a disgrace.

« Reply #49 on: June 20, 2013, 06:51 »
-1
no.
What kills the industry has not to do with quality of images.
But relevancy.
it is not so important if the picture is good, bad or grainy as if it is actually taken on the spot.
And everybody has a cellphone with a camera or an ipad.

....and that is actually a good thing.
because now the pictures are real, as they should be in news and not set up by some photog who arrived at the scene 2 hours after it happened.

And yes, I have heard about news photogs who always carried a teddy bear to place in the lower golden section when they photographed car accidents.

Milinz

« Reply #50 on: July 02, 2013, 18:24 »
0
The fact is there is a new esthetic brought about, mainly, by the Internet and and its democratic-.  Sad to say, but the reason Professional Photojournalists are no longer needed is because the readers of the media can't tell the difference between a good and bad photograph.
Or if they can, they don't care.

My point.
The art of Critical Thinking is one of the victims of the Internet.

Critical Thinking was dead when anybody can write anything on the internet and it becomes fact. Phoine photos will soon pass as a fad and good quality will be respected again.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
8191 Views
Last post March 07, 2012, 07:31
by RT
3 Replies
1742 Views
Last post April 13, 2013, 15:00
by drial7m1
Fired!

Started by Goofy « 1 2  All » Off Topic

43 Replies
4973 Views
Last post January 31, 2014, 05:28
by Ron
6 Replies
2121 Views
Last post February 10, 2015, 10:02
by Lizard
9 Replies
2171 Views
Last post January 24, 2018, 00:26
by namussi

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results