It is the signs of the times. I have seen increasingly news media (print or tele) been encouraging its readers/viewers to submit images on certain events.
It is the signs of the times. I have seen increasingly news media (print or tele) been encouraging its readers/viewers to submit images on certain events.
I was just going to post this. Pretty sad and shocking. But I guess it isn't a total surprise. I know talking to many PJ a few years back and they were all like don't even think about this field if you have other options.
I guess if you are staff at SI or NYT it's all good, but otherwise it's getting dicier and dicier if you work for a specific publication.
I guess it's mostly going to be some full-time pros at a few agencies supplying for almost everyone and then some who knows what the heck you get snapshots for very local events taken by writers with P&S or freelancers on the very cheap and reader submissions.
p.1 #3 · Photographers laid off at Chicago Sun-Times
been encouraging its readers/viewers to submit images on certain events.
Yeah, because they don't have to PAY FOR THEM Sad, newspapers are going the way of film...
p.1 #5 · Photographers laid off at Chicago Sun-Times
I would guess they'll see a large quality drop in the images they get and they wont have the control in obtaining shots or amount of images than they had with the staff photographers. The images really help to sell a newspaper, so to me it really doesn't make sense to cut costs this way.
On the other end of the spectrum this week, a young photographer posts a single wedding photo (with a little Photoshop thrown in but worth it) on his Facebook page and basically assures himself a photography gig for the rest of his life:
p.1 #7 · Photographers laid off at Chicago Sun-Times
Quite normal here in the UK as well. I was a newspaper photographer for a number of years. I got out of it and now make a lot more money as a commercial photographer
p.1 #10 · Photographers laid off at Chicago Sun-Times
JohnBrose wrote:
I would guess they'll see a large quality drop in the images they get and they wont have the control in obtaining shots or amount of images than they had with the staff photographers. The images really help to sell a newspaper, so to me it really doesn't make sense to cut costs this way.
Bean counters are responsible! The visual aspect of any news reporting medium is what generates the sale. Bean counters don't understand this even though its all around them if they look on the internet, or other newspapers. I agree with Will, all the newspapers will be history in a very few years. And, that is a shame!
p.1 #11 · Photographers laid off at Chicago Sun-Times
Newspapers printed on paper will be gone but the news will still be around. To be honest I haven't subscribed to a newspaper in seven years.but I get my news from lots of different sources.
When you think of it the whole system is doomed. Which is cheaper to produce, an online paper that is laid out and posted and updated for all who want to see it (either by subscription or free) or printing ink onto giant rolls of paper in expensive plants then delivered all over town to each home or to news boxes by trucks. Then in a few hours the paper is useless and recycled or tossed out.
Blame Craigslist. Once the classified ads (and other ad) revenue disappered it was time to lay everyone off.
It's like what iTuness did to the music business some survived and some didn't.
p.1 #12 · Photographers laid off at Chicago Sun-Times
Exactly - newspapers are now available for free online, no wonder they're losing print sales. And if they don't have revenue coming in, how can they pay photographers? (though they're still ad-supported online)
p.1 #14 · Photographers laid off at Chicago Sun-Times
Yup, this is just the way the photo industry is going. Readers will submit (all you have to do is be awake to see all the calls for readers to submit their work from companies). Just look at National Geographic. They have a full section now of readers shots and most of them are amazing photographs. The newest copy has photos in that section that are arguably better than what the articles had. With many companies today, the marketing consists of social media and reader submitted photographs. It's free and we're still in a recession. On top of that, most people in the world today have been severely downgraded as to what a quality photograph is and most photographers today would rather work for credit. I've seen top tier advertising shots where focus was missed (Rosetta Stone). It looked like it came from a point and shoot camera but alas, there it was as a full page ad in a magazine. It's pretty easy math to do but it doesn't paint a good picture.
And I'm going to venture a not so wild guess here, but I but these photographers were let go because of new and upcoming health care costs (I know I sound like a broken record). Something's just off here. No newspaper offs their ENTIRE photo staff to conveniently go freelance due to needing video. Any photographer can learn to shoot video. Even small newspapers have at least one staff photographer (at least for now).
p.1 #15 · Photographers laid off at Chicago Sun-Times
Precisely. This has been the big struggle with newspapers. You can always get free news online. Why would the majority of consumers pay for it now? It's the exact same thing going on with photography. Why would most people pay big bucks for photography when there's a talented newbe willing to do it for credit? Extremely high quality and non-biased reporting, though, is something else to behold and something worth more than what's readily available.
scottam10 wrote:
Exactly - newspapers are now available for free online, no wonder they're losing print sales. And if they don't have revenue coming in, how can they pay photographers? (though they're still ad-supported online)
p.1 #16 · Photographers laid off at Chicago Sun-Times
Next they should fire all their reporters and just get a few highschoolers to collect tweets. Oh wait, why am I bothering to read them again.............
Seriously, this kind of move has been seen in many another company, as a final, last desperate attempt stave off bankruptcy. They never work because there's no plan besides a final roll of the dice. The paper will be gone in a few months.
I pay $20 a month for an online subscription to a certain newspaper and it's worth every penny. (that being said, its pictures aren't all that hot. But I am quite happy that I don't have to bother with ads in the online version, though I subconciously ignored themin the print version). Papers are in the content business. Well, they're actually in (or should be in) the "make money for content" business. Many US papers decided to be in the "get people to look at advertisements" business - meaning low priced delivery, enough content to attract attention, and prominent space for ads. The internet has destroyed that model, though in fairness most local papers I know would have to massively improve the quality of their content to get people to pay for the content.
That being said, intelligent and careful assemblage of tweets/social media reporting would be a nice online supplement to quality reporting.....
p.1 #18 · Photographers laid off at Chicago Sun-Times
freaklikeme wrote:
I heard about this when I was listening to Marketplace. They had an interview with John H. White, a Pulitzer winner in 1982, and it is depressing.
After 35 years at the Sun-Times and nearly a half century in photojounalism, White had one regret about Thursday's layoffs. "I never heard the two words, 'thank you,' that day. I never heard that. I didn't need to hear it, but... it saddens me."
Wow.... Just wow. After so many years in service and not a word of gratitude?
Sad, newspapers are going the way of film... 
