It seems like all agencies think the next big thing is mobile photography. Are they saying good bye to DSLR photographers?

Well, we can pick up a mobile phone,can�t we? I am sitting at my desk editing mobile phone shots right now. At 100%...well, you don�t want to look at the picture in 100%...but the agencies will take it and I am sure my pics look a lot better than Mr. or Ms. Hobby iPhone photographer.

If there is money in mobile phone photography, I think it will be the crowd here that will make the most money from it.

you might want to read this article-

http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2013/07/replacing-photographers-with-iphone-wielding-reporters-yields-mixed-results/

Just a PoI: Is the Sun-Times a downmarket paper (what we'd call a tabloid) and the Tribune more upmarket (what we'd call a broadsheet?).

outsourced would be a nice change from being kicked, mistreated and cheated 

Trending "NOW" fad, and modern to match the technology. Cost cutting at newspapers which are basically dying and old technology. Last gasp efforts to reduce overhead. It's not about quality.

I know this is going to be beyond some of the younger people, but in the 70s some newspapers finally admitted that a 35mm camera could take a good enough image for their standards. Before that 2 1/4 or press camera was the minimum. The photo morgues are filled with amazing high quality shots and large negatives.

I'm sure that no newspaper would have thought of sending some reporter out (after that) with an Instamatic or disc camera. There were still standards. And up until recent times, photos were taken by photographers or reporters who were trained.

Now the cost of having paid professionals has exceeded the budgets, and one way to cut costs, is cut employees. Also everyone carries a phone, so why not? Snap a photo, shoot it over the Data connection, fast news images. Just cut the cost of equipment too.

I know someone will disagree that print isn't dead. Count the surviving newspapers and their circulations, and then tell me, print media is doing just fine. Count the number of photographers who have decades of experience with magazines and newspapers, who are now out of work.

I don't agree with less photographers or forcing reporters to do double duty. One person, two jobs? Downsizing is the same in other industries. Staffs are cut and one person is doing 2-3 times the work.

I really don't think the citizen journalist is a fantastic idea, but it does have 10,000 eyes. Everyone has a smartphone, well almost everyone, that can take a reasonable news photo. You don't need to send a photographer out to cover breaking news, it's already being seen and photos taken by people who are living it.

Where the meaningful change will occur is if news agencies actually pay a fair price for these photos. Not by-line or spare change. Good news photo and pay some real money and people will be uploading and trying to compete for that payment.

As it is, someone with a phone and a shot of something breaking in the news, would rather tweet to a friend for free, than get $5 for selling it. At least that's my opinion. Can't be bothered for small payments.

As for photographers, I'm sure most people here can appreciate what a professional or well trained amateur means. Better composition, exposure, lighting awareness, and often better positioning for the shot. Not just a grab shot, clicked with a phone.

So to answer. They can show us the door at their business, but we're not leaving the marketplace.

There's always going to be a place for art and quality news or personal interest photos. Documentary news is another place where higher standards will prevail. This phones do not have the image quality for prints and high quality magazines.

It seems like all agencies think the next big thing is mobile photography. Are they saying good bye to DSLR photographers?

Deleted. Who cares.

So to answer. They can show us the door at their business, but we're not leaving the marketplace.

Of course, but indeed there's going to be less news photographers than before, all replaced by a colorful crowd of happy snappers and hippies with their phones posting on FB and Twitter and giving their pics away for free and for fun.

Good for publishers, bad for photographers and bad for readers.

I'm reading newspapers since i was a kid, they were BAD already decades ago if we talk about quality, the problem is not the paper and the costs involved for printing and distribution, the problem is that newspapers quality went down the drain and they finally killed themselves slashing quality to the actual rock bottom standards, i mean just look at how they're now reporting about the crisis in Ukraine or how they reported the war in Lybia and Sirya, and what about the total disregard towards the clashes going on in Bosnia and Venezuela and Bangkok, i mean really if we talk about foreign affairs the mainstream press is nothing but a giant cut & paste of AP/AFP/Reuters cr-ap and they expect us to pay for it too, that's insane and it's a good thing their sales are tanking and they'll be soon become web fanzines supported by advertising, that's exactly where they belong.

Talking about news photos, i know a few surviving news photographers, all struggling to pay the bills despite getting the odd frontpage image on the biggest newspapers and that's exactly why i wouldn't join that industry now or in the future, i'll rather shoot weddings or whatever and have fun and getting also free food and free drinks and meeting nice people and nice girls.

I didn't think women with cucumbers was the kind of thing mainstream stock went in for 

I guess they want us to send SLR pictures to them, all those sites have very few mobile pics