Newspaper Dumps Photographers, Wants Video

[distant.star]

.
Claiming readers are clamoring for more video news coverage, the Chicago Sun-Times has dumped its entire photography staff.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-chicago-sun-times-photo-20130530,0,4361142.story

Seems a bit drastic, and probably related to short-term budget thinking, but it's what I'm expecting to see long-term. Still photos are going to struggle to maintain relevancy.

They're going to use stringers/freelancers for some still photography in the print edition, I guess.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

.
Claiming readers are clamoring for more video news coverage, the Chicago Sun-Times has dumped its entire photography staff.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-chicago-sun-times-photo-20130530,0,4361142.story

Seems a bit drastic, and probably related to short-term budget thinking, but it's what I'm expecting to see long-term. Still photos are going to struggle to maintain relevancy.

They're going to use stringers/freelancers for some still photography in the print edition, I guess.

Wow, that is a bit much and that is a major paper too, wow. Seems a bit nuts. man.

 

[dexstrose]

I know, its really sad.

At one newspaper I use to work at, they made some writers take pictures and videos of council meetings. Oh you should see what camera they use (p&s), the pictures usually are low resolution and terrible to work with. Lucky newsprint sucks the detail by printing at around 150 dpi and making pictures look flat.

Next to that, if the newspaper has a subscription to AP or Reuters, they can get all their photos there. Especially since AP has offices nation wide to shoot local happenings or events.

 

[deleteme]

Our local paper still has a few still photographers but ALL the writers are expected to take stills AND video when out on assignment.

They do the still with P&S cameras and really give new meaning to "f8 and be there". The res is fine and the exposure is generally good. The composition may want but the readers never notice.

As for video I doubt that many really go online to watch some wretched groundbreaking or a comment from a dogcatcher.

 

[preppyak]

Seems a bit drastic, and probably related to short-term budget thinking, but it's what I'm expecting to see long-term. Still photos are going to struggle to maintain relevancy

Especially in the news world, where, if a picture is worth a thousand words, a video is worth a thousand more.

Heck, just think of the Boston bombing, there were tons of cell phone and security camera footage, and all posted very quickly online. While they might not capture it the way a professional does, they still tell the story well enough. Especially when keeping 20 photographers on staff probably costs you north of a million dollars, in an environment where pictures aren't the main focus

 

[sanj]

Noooooooo....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://appadvice.com/appnn/2013/06/chicago-sun-times-fires-photography-staff-offers-reporters-iphone-camera-classes

 

[Click]

Re: Noooooooo....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alex Garcia has described the move as being “idiotic at worst, and hopelessly uninformed at best”


I think that says it all.

 

[RGF]

Re: Noooooooo....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Typical business short sight decision. Save a few $ now, pay later.
But you got to enjoy the humor

 

[J.R.]

Re: Noooooooo....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gotta feel bad for the guys involved :'(. To see what's been cut, go here -

http://j.mp/sun-times-photos

 

[jdramirez]

Re: Noooooooo....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

newspapers have big problems. I understand keeping the reporters & getting rid of the photographers.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Re: Noooooooo....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

newspapers have big problems. I understand keeping the reporters & getting rid of the photographers.

It's funny, here in buffalo our newspaper is doing just fine, but that's because they are using their presses to print a ton of stuff for other businesses. Sounds to me more like an old business that's not changing with the times...

 

[mdmphoto]

Re: Noooooooo....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sad, though all but inevitable. The preponderance of camera-phones, in conjunction with wi-fi, "guys with cameras", lo-fi print media resolution, s-rgb web requirements, the expense of a "good" camera and accessories, paying a professional staff photographer, and an artificially crunched economy- along with EVERYONE'S desire for something for a lot less, or even nothing, have all converged to this move by a cynical and desperate corporate entity. Why bother with hi-res "quality" imagery, and pay the price for it, when a quick cellie snapshot will amply illustrate the story printed in the daily paper? Early on, I did think that maybe I'd make eating money from my avocation, but I learned quickly that the closed and unwelcoming ever-shrinking fraternity of news photogs was not the way for a guy like me with a full-time job and family responsibilities. I continue on because of my love for the (ultimately) printed image. On those relatively few occasions that someone's appreciation of my work has included purchasing a print I have been pleased but ever- cognizant of the "gravy" nature of the event. I have been associated, though, with a group of professional photographers in Chicago who seemingly all have been Pulitzer- or other award-winning photographers for all the newspapers in Chicagoland over the last 50 years; including the sun-times. I do grieve this milestone for them, their loss in vocational fulfillment, and as, for popular culture, the past is somehow diminished, perceptually, and discarded in favor of the expedient present, and what was once vital is now considered quaint historical oddity. I was at the Rolling Stones concert last night and there was a (certainly understandably and wise-enough) ban on "professional" cameras, but everyone's -including mine's, cell phones' batteries were dead by the end of the show. Such an event as that translates well using a cell phone to the extent that hi-res "quality" offers little to any profit potential; the benefit is all journalistic documentary; which is also the allure of such photography. Such is "progress" in the modern world as we all adapt or die. I shoot on for love and documentation, hopefully communication, but, -gad...

 

[dstppy]

Re: Noooooooo....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where's the problem?

Good, on-the-scene photography is wasted on media like this. Anyone who is good at this sort of thing will end up making more doing freelance; if other media outlets follow, it'll end up driving the price of high quality shots up.

Would it have been better to hear that they'd told reporters to use their existing camera phones and hired expert quality photoshoppers? Seems to work for certain countries with nationalized media

 

[distant.star]

.
Latest turn is they say they're going to train reporters (all editorial staff) in "iphoneography."

This may be an appropriate business decision, but for sure they're not going to win any Pulitzers!

The times they are a changin'.

 

[Pi]

Re: Noooooooo....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They should fire the journalists and teach the photographers how to report from their smartphones.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

Re: Noooooooo....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can expect a lot more of this kind of thing as more newspapers spiral around the drain before they go down.

Not only has technology changed, but most newspapers insist on pushing a biased political agenda that automatically alienates about half of their prospective customers. I stopped reading newspapers about a decade ago and stopped watching television about five years ago. I don't need elite journalists telling me what to think. I'll end this here, as this is not really the place for such a discussion.

 

[Nishi Drew]

We can't have video everywhere, stills will still be relevant, but the future is motion and you need to change to accommodate and deliver, and being able to do hybrid shooting with video capable stills cameras has really allowed a lot of that to happen rather seamlessly, even though not many things in technique/theory carry over.
And what the... Sun Times just shot themselves in the foot; their understanding of video being more relevant than photos right there is admitting to the world that their own NEWSPAPER business is irrelevant, why even bother with a business that admits themselves that they deserve no place in this age!?!?

Yeah a P&S or not-even-dedicated-for-photos iPhone can get a fine shot, cover an event whatever. But no manual controls, forget about low light, any fast action, and surely miss not able to go any wider or longer.
The reporters and journalists have the advantage of being able to go places and meet people the average Joe can't, but the average Joe would be using nicer cameras more often than these folk who would be bringing their iPhones specifically for shoots. Doubt they'll get anything that's any better or any more relevant than what that average Joe is going to capture... What the Paper is doing though I think, is trying to get themselves to survive on user submitted photos, and if their own force uses iPhones then well, everyone's on par, so you can never tell if the shot came from one of their "iPhoneographers" or a local someone who was on scene.
Won't win any puliterzers maybe, but the internet can't stop buzzing with the ever tiring "wow, shot with a phone!!" tag

 

[that1guyy]

I think it was inevitable. Video much more valuable than a photo and its best to know both. Adapt or die.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Still photos are going to struggle to maintain relevancy.

I'm a full-time video guy who does stills for a hobby.
I appreciate that most folk using the forums are likely to be the opposite, or at least, more photography biased than video.

The two disciplines are entirely different, even if like me you produce both on the exact same kit.

When I think in stills I think composition I think how to make every frame count. In video I think in sequences. Lots of shots = good. I still think about composition, but I no longer require any one individual shot to be strong enough to tell the story all on it's own.

I am not a great one for the usual celeb pap pics in newspapers, I tend to read broadsheets, not because I am clever or want to appear clever, but am humble enough to admit that I need a clever persons help, or several perspectives from several clever people to help me understand the worlds events. Quality photojournalism completes that. I somehow understand a story better if it's told in coherent prose with an environmental portrait.

When I was a kid my dad used to buy the then new 'independent' on a Saturday, as the photo suppliement of the weeks events was second to none, mostly if not all b&w, of gritty stories told from in amongst it. I can remember the technical prowess, I can only image the personal skills, the charm, the persuasion, the conviction, the integrity to get the trust to open the doors on the view that told the story, as seen from the people who lived it.

Brilliant exceptional video can do that. Mediocre iphone shot press calls cannot.

I should'nt say this perhaps, given my current employer, but the newspapers were dumbed down in the ukby a certain Rupert Murdoch. Readers wanted tits and scandal. Quality tabloids (not an oxymoron, once) ditched the likes of John Pilger and his essays written so that the working man could understand complex battles in far away lands. Palestine. South Africa. Not page 3 and football.

But it's what folk seemed to want. Despite any claims to be the fourth estate, they have no statutory requirements other than to make money for their shareholders.

I hope all the kids thinking of studying photography note this news... I'm wouldn't tell them not to, I would just tell them to take note.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Sad indeed